[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


  
                   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 
                   AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED 
                    AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                   ___________________________________

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
                  ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia, Chairman

  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine		JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska	
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin			ROBERT B. ADHERHOLT, Alabama
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois		ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  BARBARA LEE, California		DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota		JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida	DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  GRACE MENG, New York


  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                Martha Foley, Perry Yates, Justin Masucci,
            Diem-Linh Jones, Joseph Layman, and Randy Staples
                            Subcommittee Staff

                     ___________________________________

                                  PART 2

                                                                   Page

  USDA Office of the Inspector General..
                                                                      1
  Food and Drug Administration_Foreign 
Drug Inspections Program................
                                                                     97
  The Rural Economy.....................
                                                                    167
  U.S. Department of Agriculture--The 
Year Ahead..............................
                                                                    207
  Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
                                                                    291
  USDA Rural Development Mission Area...
                                                                    333
  USDA Research, Education and Economics 
Mission Area............................
                                                                    385
  Members' Day..........................
                                                                    429

                     ___________________________________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-857                      WASHINGTON : 2022                      

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
     
                                     ---------- 
                                     
                       ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio			KAY GRANGER, Texas			
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina	HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky	
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California	ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia	MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  BARBARA LEE, California		JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota		KEN CALVERT, California
  TIM RYAN, Ohio			TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland	MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida	STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas			JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine		CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois	        JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  DEREK KILMER, Washington		DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania		ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  GRACE MENG, New York			MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin			CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts	STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  PETE AGUILAR, California		DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida			DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois		JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey	JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan		BEN CLINE, Virginia
  NORMA J. TORRES, California		GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida		MIKE GARCIA, California
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona		ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  ED CASE, Hawaii			TONY GONZALES, Texas
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada
     
                      Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)

 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
                RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

                              ----------                              

                                       Thursday, February 25, 2021.

  OVERSIGHT HEARING: OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
                              AGRICULTURE

                               WITNESSES

PHYLLIS FONG, INSPECTOR GENERAL, USDA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
ANN COFFEY, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, USDA, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR 
    GENERAL
GIL HARDEN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT, USDA, OFFICE OF THE 
    INSPECTOR GENERAL
JENNY RONE, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR ANALYTICS AND INNOVATION, 
    USDA, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
    Mr. Bishop. Good morning. This hearing of the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Subcommittee on 
Appropriations will come to order.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters first. For today's hearing, the chair or 
staff designated by the chair may mute participants' 
microphones when they are not under recognition for the 
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members 
are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice 
that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would 
like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by 
nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member in order until the issue is resolved, and you 
will retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired. 
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will begin with the chairman 
and ranking member, then alternating between majority and 
minority with members present at the time the hearing starts in 
the order of seniority. After that, members not present at the 
time the hearing starts are to be recognized in the order that 
they join the meeting.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff. 
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on at 
this time.
    Well, I would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing, 
which is our first in the 117th Congress. And before we get 
underway, I would like to welcome our returning members, 
including our ranking member, Jeff Fortenberry. Mr. Fortenberry 
and I have worked together very collaboratively and 
cooperatively and collegially. And I expect that that will 
continue during the 117th Congress.
    We like to welcome our new members, Representative Lauren 
Underwood, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and 
Representative Grace Meng. On the Republican side, 
Representative David Valadao is joining the subcommittee, and 
Representative Dan Newhouse is joining us for the first time. 
Each bring a unique experience to the subcommittee, and we are 
very happy to have you on board.
    Lastly, I would like to welcome our witnesses, Ms. Fong, 
Ms. Coffey, Mr. Harden and Ms. Rone, from the USDA's Office of 
Inspector General. Thank you so kindly for appearing before us 
today.
    As is typical with a new administration, the budget will be 
delayed for another month or so. Therefore, this hearing is not 
about the fiscal year 2022 budget but about Office of Inspector 
General's oversight of a wide-ranging department that touches 
the lives of every American. I have always been a big supporter 
of your office and your mission to promote economy, efficiency, 
and integrity in USDA programs and operations. Your work, 
through audits, investigations, and reviews, helps protect the 
taxpayers' interests while improving the Department's 
effectiveness and efficiency.
    Also, I want to express my appreciation for Ms. Fong's 
service as USDA's inspector general for over 18 years. Your 
tenure spans multiple administrations, including Secretary 
Vilsack's first term at the Department. So, today, I would like 
to hear more about your plans to conduct adequate oversight of 
USDA programs and the challenges you face in ensuring agreed-
upon recommendations are implemented and complaints are 
appropriately addressed. I look forward to discussing that with 
you as well as other important issues. And I want to say again 
that we appreciate you and all of the OIG staff for all that 
you do.
    Now, let me ask our distinguished ranking member, my friend 
and colleague, Mr. Fortenberry, if he has any opening remarks. 
And I would like to recognize him at this time, if he does, 
which I assume that he will.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, you know me, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I 
have some opening remarks.
    First of all, I want to thank you for your leadership, sir. 
I do appreciate our friendship and our ability to think 
critically together and to collaborate and, when we have 
difficulties, to try to find a constructive outcome. Thank you 
so much again for your leadership and for calling this 
important committee hearing.
    Good morning, Ms. Fong. It is nice to sort of see you 
again, even though we can't gather in a normal hearing room. I 
would like to thank you, as the chairman did, for your work and 
being with us today. We admire--we do admire the critical work 
that your agency is performing. Conducting audits and studies 
and investigations is a challenge in a normal year, but your 
efforts during the pandemic have presented you with even more 
challenges. But, despite this, your testimony does indicate 
that you have been quite busy, and, for that, we are grateful.
    The deft, efficient delivery of USDA programs is critical 
to America's health, livelihood, food security, not only here 
but for hundreds of millions of people around the world, 
feeding programs as well for the elderly and children, safe 
meat and poultry products at our dinner tables, and 
conservation of farm lands and forests, as well as the 
important support of programs, stabilization programs for our 
farmers and ranchers. We depend upon your agency to provide us 
with that scorecard every year as to whether USDA is 
effectively implementing the various programs as designed by 
law.
    So, today, I would like to hear from you about whether we 
are making real progress in reducing the size and scope of any 
incidents of monetary abuse. Second, I would like to explore 
the process by which you review and audit the 29 agencies and 
their respective programs. I will ask you to step back and take 
a look at how USDA leadership is responding to your findings, 
both good and bad.
    I also want to discuss a number of other issues, some of 
which were raised in your testimony, one in particular your 
recent scientific research and integrity review evaluation 
stating that USDA does not currently have a comprehensive 
inventory of its research studies and findings. This is a very 
important issue to the chairman and I, as we have both agreed 
on a new blue ribbon commission that USDA will shepherd to take 
a look at land-grant institutions and historically Black 
colleges as to how we can better collaborate on the funds that 
are out there.
    So I will stop there for now, Mr. Chairman, and use the 
rest of my time during questions. Thank you.
    Voice. Mr. Chairman, you need to unmute, please.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I don't believe that the chair of 
the full committee, Ms. DeLauro is on the line. If she is, I 
would recognize her at this time for any comments that she 
would like to make.
    I don't believe she is in attendance, and I would offer the 
same to the full committee ranking member, Ms. Granger, if she 
is on the line.
    Apparently, they are both very, very busy at the moment. We 
will allow them to have remarks, should they come into the 
meeting a little later.
    Now, Ms. Fong, without objection, your entire written 
testimony will be included in the record. I will recognize you 
now for your statement, and then we will proceed with 
questions. We ask that you summarize your statement or you may 
give the entire statement. It is completely up to you. Of 
course, a summary would allow for more time for questions from 
members.
    At this time, I am delighted to welcome Ms. Fong. And I 
will allow you to introduce your cohorts from the IG's office.
    Ms. Fong, the floor is yours.
    Ms. Fong. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member Fortenberry and all of the members of this subcommittee. 
We really appreciate the very warm welcome that you are giving 
us today and a chance to talk about our activities and our 
oversight of USDA.
    With me today is Ann Coffey, our deputy inspector general, 
who is also going to be the go-to witness for any investigative 
questions you might have. We have Gil Harden, our assistant IG 
for audit. He is a very familiar witness before this committee 
and is an expert on audit and inspection activities in our 
office. And, of course, we have Jenny Rone, who is the newest 
member of our mission team. She is the assistant IG for 
analytics and oversight. And in that role, she is responsible 
for coming up with and innovating new ways for us to use data, 
data analytics, and data science in our work to target the most 
high-risk areas for oversight. So I think you will enjoy their 
testimony.
    So I want to just start out by thanking the subcommittee 
for your ongoing interest in our work and your support through 
the funding you have given us in the appropriations process, as 
well as for pandemic oversight. We really appreciate the 
dialogue that we have with your committee.
    As you mentioned, this past year has been a challenging one 
for all with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is our 
first virtual hearing as well. So there is a lot of new 
initiatives and techniques that we have had to master to get 
our work done over the past year. We have spent a lot of 
thought keeping our staff safe and healthy in this environment 
while still carrying out our mission in a maximum telework 
environment, and that has I think really been successful. I am 
extremely proud of all of the OIG staff who have exhibited high 
professionalism, dedication, and morale and, as you mentioned, 
have produced outstanding work over the last year. We issued 44 
audit reports, obtained 345 criminal convictions, and reported 
over $360 million in dollar results last year alone. So kudos 
to everyone involved in that.
    The pandemic has also brought challenges to our office 
beyond finding new ways to accomplish our mission. As you know, 
USDA has received over $61 billion for pandemic response 
activities to address urgent needs for nutrition, farm 
programs, rural development, and other matters. And with those 
new funds for programs comes the need for oversight to ensure 
that those programs are serving those for whom they are 
intended and that fraud is addressed quickly.
    So one of our priorities moving into fiscal year 2020, 
moving to fiscal year 2021, has been to quickly analyze these 
new initiatives, develop our oversight approach, engage USDA 
managers to focus on internal controls in their programs, 
address the hotline complaints we are receiving in these areas, 
and initiate our own audits and inspections of various program 
activities.
    My written statement highlights a number of products that 
we have already issued, as well as the COVID Procurement 
Dashboard that our staff has developed for public use, as well 
as any stakeholder, which will give people an insight into the 
COVID procurements that USDA has executed.
    In addition, we have a number of ongoing reviews in such 
programs, such pandemic programs as the Farmers to Families 
Food Box Program, the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, the 
Food Safety and Inspection Service's pandemic response at 
slaughter and processing establishments, the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program, the SNAP online purchasing program, and 
RD's Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program. As you can 
see, we have a full portfolio of work in this area.
    We have also initiated, of interest I think to all of us, 
the pulse survey of FSIS inspectors to obtain information on 
their perceptions about safety conditions in their work 
environment. We released the survey this week to the FSIS 
workforce, and responses are starting to come in. In all of 
these areas, we anticipate completing these projects in 
calendar year 2021. So we have a full menu of work ahead of us.
    Of course, in addition to pandemic response, we continue to 
perform oversight of our full portfolio of USDA programs and 
activities, as detailed in my written statement. I do want to 
just mention that we also do our annual mandatory work of 
USDA's financial statements, information technology security, 
and improper payments. And in these areas, while we are seeing 
some improvement, progress is slow. We believe that additional 
management attention is needed to move USDA into an effective 
compliance position in these essential areas. We look forward 
to working with newly confirmed Secretary Vilsack and his team 
on these issues and all of the other issues facing the 
Department.
    So, in closing, I want to thank you and the subcommittee 
and ask for your continuing support as we move through the 
appropriation process in fiscal year 2022. And we look forward 
to addressing your questions and engaging in dialogue with you 
today about the issues on your mind. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Fong.
    We will now proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier, 
we will begin with the chair and ranking member, then 
alternating majority and minority with members present at the 
time of the hearing start, in order of seniority. Following 
that, I will recognize members who were not present at the time 
the hearing was called to order. Each member will have 5 
minutes in each round. So please be mindful of your time.
    I now recognize myself for questions. Ms. Fong, as I 
mentioned in my opening statement, you have been USDA's 
inspector general for almost two decades. Your time there spans 
over five Secretaries, including Secretary Tom Vilsack from 
2009 to 2017. A lot has changed since then, some due to 
progress and some due to new challenges.
    In 2009, your office identified 10 management challenges 
for USDA which are vulnerabilities that can affect USDA's 
ability to achieve its mission. By 2017, three of those 
challenges remained on the list and four new ones were added. 
From your 2020 report, it does not look like a lot of progress 
has been made over the last 4 years. Why were those areas not 
resolved by the previous administration?
    Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. By their nature, 
the management challenges that we have identified facing USDA 
are very broad challenges. And by their nature, they require 
concentrated attention to address and resolve. And as you 
probably know, some challenges that have been on our list have 
dropped off, and then sometimes they reappear again because 
situations change. I think, you know, as we were discussing 
earlier today that what I would suggest is that in the areas 
particularly of financial management, improper payments, and IT 
security that, while there has been progress and every 
administration has moved the ball forward, there are always new 
challenges that crop up. And it really requires continued work 
and attention to get USDA into an effective posture. And that 
is something that we are deeply committed to working with the 
Department on every year.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Last year, we talked about USDA's 
need to improve outreach efforts to assure that programs 
reached the intended participants, recipients from low-income 
children receiving school meals to local farmers participating 
in national grant programs, as well as to socially 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. This has been a top 
management challenge identified by your office going back to 
2013. It is also a major concern of mine. Can you give us a 
status update on how USDA is doing to meet this challenge, how 
much progress the Department has made, and what would it take 
for this issue to get off your annual management challenge 
report?
    Ms. Fong. You have identified exactly one of those 
challenges that over time has been on our list, has dropped off 
our list, and has come back again. And this is a very sensitive 
area, a very challenging area for people to address. We have 
done audit and investigative work over the years since the 
1990s looking at various aspects of it. We continue to do work 
in that area. I think one thing that is essential is for tone 
at the top to be established where the Department takes a 
strong position on what its expectations are and then to 
implement that tone at the top throughout the program areas in 
the Department.
    As you know, we have seen different aspects of this issue 
in our work in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights, in our reviews of farm programs, assistance to Black, 
Hispanic, women farmers and ranchers in the section 2501 
program for outreach and assistance. There are numerous areas 
in the Department where this clear policy direction would I 
think be the first step and then, of course, to roll out the 
programs appropriately and with the right internal controls to 
make sure that they really are being delivered to the 
recipients that they are intended for.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Fong. I think my time is just 
about up.
    So I will at this time yield to Mr. Fortenberry for his 
first round of questions.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, good morning, Ms. Fong.
    As your testimony notes, you recently completed an 
assessment as to whether the Trump administration's changes in 
policy and/or processes impacted the publication of scientific 
reports. There were claims that USDA was suppressing climate 
change research. It is important to note that your office, the 
OIG, did not identify any instances where the previous 
administration's policies or processes impacted the publication 
of USDA research during fiscal years 2017 through 2019.
    However, as I alluded to in my opening statement, you did 
make some interesting discoveries about scientific 
publications. And this is where I would like to lead you to a 
question. It seems as if the research mission area cannot 
account for all of its research. As I have mentioned, the 
chairman and I are very eager to see USDA implement this new 
blue ribbon panel to look at the future of land-grant 
institutions and how there can be better collaboration and 
cooperation. I think this question of what current research is 
being conducted, as well as findings, is central to that 
mission.
    They were not apparently able to tell how many USDA-
supported publications have been produced over the last couple 
of years. So what is your assessment of the coordination of ag 
research across USDA and land-grant universities?
    Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. I think when we 
did that review, we made that finding and----
    Mr. Fortenberry. It seemed like you stumbled into the 
finding. That wasn't the initial charge of the research. Is 
that right?
    Ms. Fong. That wasn't the initial scope, you know. And I 
may ask Gil to comment. But to get to the crux of your 
question, you are exactly right. Unless and until the USDA has 
a way to really have accurate data on what it is producing in 
this area, it is difficult to measure how effective the program 
is, how effectively we are carrying out research, and what 
exactly we are looking at and how we can coordinate it. That is 
a very basic step that needs to be taken. So I think the crux 
of your question is right on.
    Mr. Fortenberry. So do you have any policy recommendations 
in that regard? Now, this happens every year during this 
hearing, that we identify the problem and then we turn to you 
for certain policy prescriptions, which isn't fully your job 
but partly your jobs. Do you have recommendations?
    Ms. Fong. I may defer to Mr. Harden here, who may have some 
insight on that on our recommendations.
    Mr. Harden. Yes. Thanks, Phyllis.
    Good morning, Ranking Member Fortenberry.
    As we stumbled into this part of the question, because that 
was not part of the original congressional request of 
questions, we found that agencies use different mechanisms in 
terms of recording it. So we had some information but not all 
of the information. Some agencies were using internal systems; 
others were relying on things like Google Scholar to know what 
was published. So that led us to make a recommendation that the 
Department did agree with in terms of identifying and 
implementing a standard mechanism by which to track these 
publications. They fully agreed with the recommendation and are 
working to implement that as we speak.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, that is good news. Where will that 
be embedded? Who will have responsibility for that?
    Mr. Harden. We made that recommendation to the research 
area, and I will go back and make sure that I know--I can come 
back to you if it is a specific agency or not.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yes. And a timeline for the implementation 
of the change.
    Mr. Harden. I will get that. They included that in the 
response. I just don't have it in front of me.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Before the hearing is over, could you 
obtain that? Because this is a central question to some of our 
initiatives? Is that a possibility?
    Mr. Harden. Yes. I can do it now.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, it would be tough to go into depth 
into more questions because I only have about 30 seconds. So I 
will just yield back for now.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    At this time, I would be delighted to recognize the 
gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you to the presenters and Ms. Fong for being 
here. It is always a pleasure to hear from you on the diligent 
hard work you do for us every year.
    I appreciate the question by Representative Fortenberry, 
the ranking member. I am kind of going down that same pathway, 
so it shows these questions are extremely bipartisan. On that 
report, one of the concerns that I had in looking into the 
scientific integrity is that the OIG was only able to interview 
a nonstatistical sample of 21 researchers at 2 of the 4 
research agencies. So I understand this is a very sensitive 
investigation for those researchers involved, but why did you 
choose to use the nonstatistical sample? How were the 
researchers selected? And I will just throw a couple of other 
things in. Were the names anonymous? And how did you protect 
them?
    Ms. Fong. I think Mr. Harden may have some detail on that. 
And so I am going to defer to him.
    Mr. Harden. Yeah. I know we limited it to agencies where 
they had--and I will also--can also look this up to provide a 
fuller answer. But those--we chose researchers in ARS and ERS 
because those were the ones that had things that they were 
actually publishing. When you--I am sorry if I am speaking in 
acronyms, but we chose the Ag Research Service and the Economic 
Research Service because of what they published. The National 
Institute of Food and Agriculture and the National Ag Statistic 
Service really didn't have research that they published in that 
manner. So that is why we stuck with those two agencies. And it 
does come down basically to a judgment call of doing it 
nonstatistically in the time that we were trying to get it 
done.
    Ms. Pingree. Got it. And I am assuming that the question on 
the names of the employees being anonymous and they were 
protected?
    Mr. Harden. Yes. If they requested to do so, most 
definitely.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, in relation to the first 
question, or Mr. Fortenberry's question, it seems like we need 
a better way to evaluate this. And I think you already brought 
that up previously.
    I will bring of a different topic. So the safety of workers 
in meat-packing plants is certainly something I and many others 
have been concerned about during the pandemic. In particular, 
we have seen such large outbreaks in those facilities. Reports 
have shown that hundreds of workers in these plants and several 
FSIS inspectors have sadly lost their lives due to COVID-19. 
Can you tell me more about the pulse survey you are planning on 
FSIS inspectors and their safety during the pandemic? And I 
guess I would also ask you, are you looking more broadly at the 
USDA's actions to keep FSIS personnel, other workers safe?
    Ms. Fong. Let me just offer a couple of comments and then 
Jenny Rone might give more detail on the survey. We have two 
projects going on with respect to FSIS processing plants during 
COVID. We have an inspection which is going to look at how FSIS 
is spending its funds under the CARES Act to ensure the health 
and safety of the inspectors and to ensure inspections are 
happening appropriately and ensure COVID tests and reliable PPE 
and all of those issues.
    In addition, while we were doing this--initiating this 
work, we decided it would be useful to get the perspectives of 
the inspectors themselves as to whether they felt protected, 
whether they had what they needed. So we developed a pulse 
survey. I am going to turn it over to Jenny now to go into a 
little more detail on what it says.
    Ms. Rone. Good morning. Thank you, Phyllis.
    And thank you for the question. The Office of Analytics and 
Innovation, as of Monday, released the survey to the frontline 
inspectors across the Food, Safety, and Inspection Service. And 
we are calling it a pulse survey for a reason, because it is 
truly to check the pulse of those frontline workers in terms of 
their, as Phyllis said, perception of safety in their work 
environment, the institution of safety protocols, and processes 
established, all related to COVID-19.
    So we released that survey on Monday. It is going to run 
for 2 weeks, and then we will be analyzing that data and 
working on developing a report which reflects that pulse of 
those frontline workers and their responses.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, we are certainly very concerned 
about those issues so we look forward to hearing what results 
you get and the information you retrieve.
    So thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
    At this time, I am happy to recognize Mr. Valadao for any 
questions that he may have.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity.
    And, our guests, I thank you all for being here today.
    My question is: Well, it is important for disadvantaged 
Americans to have access to food. The Department's Farmers to 
Families Food Box Program addresses this important issue.
    In your testimony, you mentioned that one of your ongoing 
projects is an inspection of the Farmers to Families Food Box 
Program administration. I am personally glad you are looking 
into this and how the program has been administered because I 
have heard from some of my constituents that not all food items 
for boxes, like butter, have had a fair chance to be included. 
But I want to specifically focus on the bidding process.
    I have heard from some of our--because obviously I 
represent a large ag district and a lot of production ag. But I 
have also heard that, on the bidding side, companies actually 
bid for projects who had no ability to actually deliver a 
product. And so they won these bids by undercutting legitimate 
businesses and were never able to deliver those. Obviously this 
is a concern because making sure that food is getting to those 
who need it most, making sure that there is transparency in the 
purchase process, and making sure that people aren't taking 
advantage of the system. Is there any sort of repercussions for 
those who played, I guess, games with the USDA? And where does 
that go?
    Ms. Fong. Well, thank you for that question. We know, as 
probably all of you do, that there have been many media reports 
about concerns with the delivery of this program, which is why 
one of the reasons why we initiated our work into it, and we 
are in the middle of the work right now, the field work. And we 
are looking very carefully at the procurement process, the 
awarding of contracts, to make sure that the Department 
followed the requirements of the Federal acquisition 
regulations to make sure that they awarded contracts 
appropriately.
    I think you have brought some interesting information to 
light about the dairy industry, which we appreciate. And I am 
going to offer a chance to Gil here to comment in a little more 
depth, if he wishes.
    Mr. Harden. Yeah. We are looking at the solicitation 
process for the Food Box Program, but also we will be getting 
into how they allocated funding to the different contractors, 
as well as did they meet the mission of what they set out to 
do. So those are all questions that we are looking into.
    Mr. Valadao. Well, the issue that we ran across in this 
specific situation was it is my understanding, obviously I am 
not part of those phone calls because I am not in that 
business, but that one person went out and actually got prices 
from some of the competitors, undercut them all, was awarded 
the contract with no ability to actually deliver on the 
contract. And so the legitimate businesses, I mean probably 
once the product wasn't delivered from the guy who won the 
contract wasn't able to deliver, they went to the next people 
in line, which is legitimate. But there was a holdup in 
delivering food to needy families. And to me that is a huge 
concern. Is there any punishment for those who go in and try to 
undercut everyone without any ability to actually deliver a 
product? I mean, it is bad for everyone. USDA looks bad. The 
farmers aren't able to deliver a product, and obviously those 
who need it most are not able to receive a product. So it is 
something I would like to bring to your attention, and I would 
like to be looked into.
    Mr. Harden. That is right. The team actually can take that 
question up as part of what we are doing to under--to make sure 
we fully understand the solicitation process and why they 
picked who they picked.
    Mr. Valadao. Okay. And then I am going to change it up a 
little bit. Obviously, technology security is a big issue. And 
I know that you have been looking into it. And, obviously, 
there are countless cyber attacks on an ongoing basis. USDA has 
access to a lot of information. Farmers who sign up for 
programs put lots of personal information in those documents, 
and everything is available and accessible. Have the 
cybersecurity issues been addressed? Are the different USDA 
branches actually doing their job in making sure that farmers' 
personal information is secure?
    Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. This is a 
longstanding management challenge that we have pointed out to 
the Department and the Department is aware of. I think we all 
share a commitment to protecting sensitive data. We understand 
the concerns, the Department, as well as our office.
    As you know, we do a review of the Department's IT security 
posture annually. And, thus far, the Department's posture is 
less than effective. There has been slow progress, but it needs 
to continue to make progress here.
    Now, on the bright side, we do have a very good working 
relationship with the Office of the Chief Information Officer. 
So, when there are situations that arise, incidents that can 
happen that require our oversight either audit or 
investigative, there is very good communication and sharing of 
information as appropriate.
    Mr. Valadao. Okay. If there is something else that Members 
of Congress can do, obviously, we need to step in because this 
is a huge issue for people across the country.
    I know my time is up so I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Pocan.
    Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate it.
    And thanks to the Office of Inspector General for being 
with us today.
    Let me start with, last year, we discussed the audit of the 
swine slaughter modernization rule. And, unfortunately, we have 
learned a lot more about how dangerous that rule is. The 
Washington Post recently reported that the Trump administration 
actually hid data showing that the pork plants piloting the so-
called self-inspection system had nearly twice as much fecal 
and digestive matter on meat than other plants. This 
contamination is obviously dangerous to consumers' health, and 
it is a direct result of the ever increasing line speeds that 
harm meat-processing plant workers.
    Further, the report said that beyond the five plants in the 
test program, the USDA estimates 35 additional pork plants are 
expected to use this system. That would represent 90 percent of 
the pork consumed in the United States. I just want to know, 
are you going to be doing any further audits on the food safety 
analysis that the agency did leading up to the approval of its 
rules, given this new information and this data?
    Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. As you know, we 
have done two reviews in this area already and pointed out some 
of the issues with the safety data. And I know that this issue 
has been in litigation. It is a very complex issue. We will, I 
think, look at in this our next planning cycle. And we are 
getting ready to think about that, to see if there is anything 
that we can add here.
    And I will turn it over to Gil to see if you have any 
additional thoughts. You may be aware of something that I am 
not aware of, Gil.
    Mr. Harden. No, we definitely will consider this in our 
next planning cycle, but I would also mention that there is the 
new poultry inspection system, which also deals with line 
speeds in poultry plants. We have done the national office 
oversight of that a couple years back and have plans to do work 
in the field on that as soon as we can get in the field related 
to COVID concerns.
    Mr. Pocan. I just think, if you could look at both, if you 
are going to do that because, clearly, if 90 percent of the 
Nation's pork are going to be under this system. I think it is 
in the best interests of consumers.
    I would add to that, there also was a great report last 
weekend on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. It is kind of 
sad that a comedy show does better news analysis than any of 
our cable networks, but they did a very good report. And in 
addition to talking about this, what I just talked about, they 
also brought up COVID in the meat-packing facilities. And I 
know that, for fiscal year 2021, your work plan notes that you 
will evaluate the Food Safety and Inspection Service's response 
to COVID at these plants. As we know, over 57,000 workers have 
gotten COVID; 280 people have died from these facilities. We 
also know that managers in some of these facilities bet on how 
many people would get this. Given this repugnant behavior by 
the industry, can you talk more about the scope of that 
investigation and when we can expect it?
    Ms. Fong. Yes. That is one of our priority projects for 
this fiscal year. We are in the middle of field work on that 
right now, the inspection piece of it, which is going to look 
at a wide range of aspects of how FSIS is using its COVID funds 
to protect its workers and to make sure that everything is 
operating as smoothly as it can during the pandemic. And we 
have some very specific objectives, which we can share with 
you.
    We also, as we have discussed, we initiated a pulse survey 
of FSIS inspectors this week to find out their thoughts and 
their perceptions on how safety and COVID response activities 
are going in the plants. And I think that that would also be a 
very useful report when it comes out. That will come out I 
think in the next few months.
    Mr. Pocan. Great. Glad to hear that. And in the remaining 
minute, if I can real quickly, the Animal Welfare Act with 
respect to dog breeders, I have been alarmed by the drastic 
drop in USDA citation on inspection reports and enforcement 
actions taken against noncompliant licensees over the last 4 
years. I am looking forward to reading a very thorough report 
on this. Can you please share more information about that scope 
and when we can get those final results?
    Ms. Fong. Mr. Harden I think has the details.
    Mr. Harden. Yes. I will attempt to address that.
    We are in the process of putting that draft report together 
so we are planning to release that later this spring, or by 
early summer. And doing the work, you know, as a preview and in 
light of COVID, we weren't able to do all the work we planned 
in terms of going to the different breeding facilities as part 
of the work, but we did do work at the headquarters level and 
what the oversight was. We will have future work to look at 
things on the ground.
    Mr. Pocan. Great. I thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
    I would like to recognize Mr. Moolenaar.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Ms. Fong, thank you for being here with us today, and 
it is nice to see you again.
    I wanted to ask you, in your testimony, you stated that the 
OIG continues to receive complaints and referrals related to 
allegations associated with COVID-19 pandemic relief from the 
public. I am wondering if you could comment on which programs 
you have received the most complaints.
    Ms. Fong. All right. We have a hotline, as you know, that 
takes in complaints from the public and others. And we received 
a number of complaints, some very worthy of further action. By 
and large, you know, as you would expect, we were receiving 
complaints about the Food Box Program, pandemic EBT fraud, 
personal protective equipment, but the largest group thus far 
has been related to the CFAP program, and that is, you know, we 
are focused on those issues right now on our investigation 
side.
    Mr. Moolenaar. I was going to ask, could you identify any 
of the schemes that have been used that have been frauding, 
defrauding people?
    Ms. Fong. I am going to ask Ann if she would like to 
comment on that.
    Ms. Coffey. Thank you. So I think what we have been seeing 
from most of the schemes that have come in the majority of them 
involve false statements or false certifications, individuals 
who are providing false information in order to obtain the 
benefits, and they would not normally be able to obtain them if 
they had completed them. We have also seen some level of 
redirecting individuals who, I don't want to say identity 
theft, but individuals who are applying for benefits who don't 
have any farming production or any interest in the agricultural 
sector would apply for the benefits. Those are the most common 
schemes we have seen thus far with respect to the Coronavirus 
Food Assistance Program, and that is what we are focusing on 
from the investigation side.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Thank you.
    And then I wondered, in your work, we have done a lot in 
Congress to promote rural broadband. And I think the pandemic 
has really illustrated how challenging this is for rural 
communities where kids are trying to do their homework and 
don't have access to the internet or healthcare providers want 
to do telemedicine, and if we don't have access, it is very 
difficult for that. I appreciate Chairman Bishop's interest and 
focus on this as well.
    I wonder if you could comment on your Department and just 
see if there are areas that you have identified that we could 
be doing more to advance rural broadband across the country?
    Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. Rural broadband is 
an area that we have looked at over the years a number of times 
because, as you point out, the need to be able to connect rural 
America with the rest of America and to provide services to 
people at the end of the line. We have not done work in that 
program recently. But I am watching the funding streams as they 
come out for COVID, and I recognize that there is some 
additional money for that program. So I think we would want to 
consider your request as we design our work for the future to 
see if there is anything of value that we could add here.
    Mr. Moolenaar. That would be of great interest to me in our 
district, and I know probably other members on the panel. It is 
something that, you know, as you mentioned, there are four 
rural broadband connectivity programs within the USDA Rural 
Utilities Service. And, you know, I would--it is one of those 
areas where we are trying to really move the ball forward. It 
is difficult to get, you know, real good information on how we 
are doing in that, and certainly in our districts that, you 
know, it is at the top of my priorities so I would be very 
grateful for that.
    Ms. Fong. Thank you.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
    At this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from 
Illinois, Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to our witnesses for being here and for all 
the important work that you do.
    Like so many across the country, farmers in northern 
Illinois have faced some incredibly difficult years recently. 
They have had to cope with tough weather conditions, as well as 
the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic. And through 
no fault of their own, they were forced to bear the brunt of 
the previous President's misguided trade war with China. I am 
heartened to see that times appear to be looking up, but this 
doesn't erase the hardships that farmers have faced. And it is 
critical that we learn from recent experiences so we can do 
better, both in Congress and at USDA.
    I am concerned by evidence that payments made through the 
Market Facilitation Program were not distributed fairly across 
regions and crops, and that large farms benefited at the 
expense of smaller farms, like those in my district. Recent 
analyses, including a September report by the Government 
Accountability Office, suggests that corn, soybean, and dairy 
farmers in districts like mine, received disproportionately low 
MFP payments compared to those in other regions or producing 
other commodities, even though they represent some of the 
producers hardest hit by the trade war.
    Other analysis published just yesterday by the 
Environmental Working Group found that nearly a quarter of all 
MFP payments in 2019 and 2020 went to the top 1 percent of the 
recipients. I am aware that the OIG has released two reports on 
the Market Facilitation Program. However, these reports did not 
include analysis or recommendations as to the effectiveness of 
the program in carrying out its core mission: to aid farmers 
directly impacted by retaliatory tariffs.
    So, Ms. Fong, I understand that your office's review of MFP 
is ongoing. Are you considering these concerns over the design 
and distribution of the MFP payments as part of this review? 
And if so, when can we expect to see that report?
    Ms. Fong, you are muted.
    Ms. Fong. Okay. Here we go. Let me offer a few introductory 
comments, and then I think Gil will have some additional 
detail.
    You are exactly right in terms of some of the issues that 
have come up in this whole area of the trade mitigation 
portfolio. We had a number of ongoing reviews, including the 
review of the Market Facilitation Program. Our initial work 
that you referred to we were looking at the USDA's overall 
authority to do these programs. And we found that, overall, 
USDA has authority to do them. And so we are now looking at the 
specific programs to see how they were delivered, how they are 
designed, whether they are accomplishing what they are supposed 
to accomplish.
    As you mentioned, GAO is doing work as well. We work very 
closely with GAO to make sure we are not duplicating efforts. 
And so they have their area of focus, as you know.
    We are looking at the administration of the program. We are 
looking at producer eligibility, accuracy of payments, and 
distribution of payments across demographics and geographical 
areas so that we don't overlap with GAO. You may have heard 
about our work on the demographics issue as well, which we 
think is very interesting.
    So let me just offer Gil a chance to comment on where we 
are in this work and what we can expect.
    Mr. Harden. Yes, ma'am. We are in the midst of field work 
on this assignment where we are actually looking at a sample of 
producer case files, having that information sent in to us. We 
are getting a stat sample so there are about 100 case files 
that we are going to be looking at and seeing what we can say 
programwide related to that on payment accuracy and 
eligibility. We are expecting to have that report later this 
summer.
    Ms. Underwood. Great. Thank you.
    Your May 2020 report on MFP found that USDA's methodology 
is reasonable and was applied consistently, but it doesn't mean 
that it is effective or equitable. And so, even if MFP is 
ended, it is important that we can apply the lessons learned to 
any new programs. And I want to do everything that I can to 
make sure that farmers in my district get a fair shake. I 
really encourage your office to do this necessary analysis in 
upcoming reviews and to make recommendations that USDA can 
apply to future programs.
    And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Underwood, for those 
very insightful questions.
    At this time, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from 
California, the co-chair of the Steering and Policy Committee, 
and the chair of the Foreign Ops Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee, Ms. Lee, of California.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you very much to our witnesses.
    Hello, Ms. Fong. It is nice seeing you again.
    A couple of questions I have. First of all, I have three 
really. In 2019, the OIG published a 5-year strategic mission 
and diversity and inclusion plan that outlines specific goals 
and strategies and performance measures that you have 
established. So I wanted to find out in terms of your 
assessment of USDA's diversity and inclusion goals, are there 
challenges that you have identified? And just how are we doing 
in meeting the goals of that assessment, those recommendations?
    Secondly, let me just ask, you know, I come from 
California, which of course is an agricultural State, and we 
are always looking for new markets for our farmers. And I 
wanted to ask you about Cuba and the status of exports to Cuba. 
In light of the last 4 years, we know that there have been 
policy changes. But I am wondering, in your assessment, now, 
are we looking more at opening up new markets, including Cuba? 
And, thirdly, your assessment as it is relates to hemp and 
cannabis, where are we in terms of the research and the actual 
results and recommendations on the use of hemp and cannabis and 
the outcomes that you all are seeing in terms of your 
assessment, given the fact that so many States now moved 
forward with medicinal and recreational use?
    Ms. Fong. Let me comment on your initial question first, 
and then I will ask Mr. Harden to offer some insights on the 
Cuba export question and then the hemp and cannabis question. 
With respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion, this is an 
issue that we at OIG feel is an important issue; it is in our 
management challenges for the Department and that we recognize 
that this needs concentrated attention.
    Thank you for mentioning our strategic plan, our strategic 
diversity and inclusion plan. Within OIG, this is what guides 
the work of my office because we recognize the need to have a 
strong approach here and a strong workforce and inclusive 
culture that values the contributions of every individual. And 
we think that that is critical to accomplishing our mission.
    I don't think we have any comments to offer because the 
Department may not have taken the same approach to date, but as 
you know, we are doing a lot of work within the Department 
about its efforts. On outreach and diversity, we have a number 
of reviews going on right now looking at how the Department is 
delivering its programs for social and disadvantaged farmers 
and ranchers, how the Department handles complaints under title 
VI and title VII of the Civil Rights Act and numerous other 
areas. So we anticipate this will be a continuing area of focus 
for us.
    And, with that, let me just quickly turn to Mr. Harden so 
that we don't run out of time here.
    Mr. Harden. Oh, yes. Thanks, Phyllis.
    With respect to your question, Congresswoman Lee, on 
exports to Cuba, I don't have anything specific to add. But I 
note your question, and it is something I would want to talk to 
the new administration about in terms of where they are going. 
I didn't have any reviews of that in the last administration.
    With regard to hemp, we did recognize that last year in our 
planning that this is a new program for the Department and a 
new area that they are going to be going into. And I actually 
have an assignment that will be starting a little later this 
year into that program. And so I would be happy to work with 
your office if there are specific questions you have.
    Ms. Lee. Well, hemp and cannabis, what about cannabis? Are 
you including that also?
    Mr. Harden. My familiarity--I will go back and check and 
see if it includes cannabis as well--it is more of a hemp role, 
but I will check.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Great.
    And, finally, then, I have a few more seconds, just in 
terms of the fact that so many more people have fallen into 
poverty during this pandemic and so many more now are food 
insecure--I believe that there was one report that showed 
between 26 million to 29 million people in the United States at 
some point didn't have enough to eat during the first few 
months of the pandemic. What are you doing in terms of 
empowering USDA to look at the inequities in terms of food 
security as it relates to poverty rates? And how can USDA be a 
positive force in helping to eliminate poverty?
    Ms. Fong. Let me just offer some general comments.
    We spend a lot of time looking at the Food and Nutrition 
Service and how it can deliver its programs, and our main focus 
is to offer suggestions to FNS on how we can deliver those 
funds as effectively as possible and how it can improve its 
outreach.
    For example, in our recent report on summer food, one of 
the things we pointed out to the Food and Nutrition Service was 
that it could serve even more eligible people--students, kids--
if there was more of a focus on effective outreach to the 
populations for which that assistance is intended. And I think 
these kinds of issues can be very helpful to the agencies as we 
find them.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize Ms. McCollum of 
Minnesota, the chair of the Defense Subcommittee of 
Appropriations.
    Ms. McCollum.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good morning, 
and this is a great way to start off our hearing season.
    I have a question that I am going to submit for the record, 
Ms. Fong. Ms. Pingree, who is also on the committee, and I both 
serve on Interior, and we were working on wildland fires and 
COVID and the type of response in that that we had to do. And 
you had a memorandum in August of 2020 providing comments on 
wildland fire response plans that you were developing on, and 
so I am going to submit a question. We would like to--I would 
like to learn a little more, and I am sure Ms. Pingree was 
involved in this as well, too, what we can do to be helpful and 
what we might need to do in that realm.
    Another area which I would like some more information on 
has to do with food distribution on Indian reservations. As we 
know, COVID-19 has increased food insecurity across the 
country. Indian Country has been no exception. Native American 
communities across this country suffer from high rates of food 
insecurity. And one of the tools that is available is the food 
distribution program on Indian reservations, and this program 
is critical to the safety net where SNAP benefits is limited, 
and it helps to promote Tribal sovereignty. And some of the 
foods that are focused and relied upon help meet cultural and 
Tribal needs.
    Unfortunately, this program does not have a contingency 
plan for shutdowns, as we saw during the previous 
administration, and it severely impacted the ability of Tribal 
organizations to access food. In fact, sometimes there was food 
available on a reservation, but it was literally locked up.
    So I am going to have my office reach out to yours to see 
if we need to do something administratively, if we need to do 
something legislatively, or if there is rulemaking that can be 
done to prevent this in the future.
    With my time remaining, I was a little confused with some 
of your testimony on page 8 and 9, and it had to do with the 
Farm Service Agency counting employees, where you were 
collecting race, ethnicity, and gender data on producers that 
were part of the Market Facilitation Program.
    So it appears that you are not supposed to be collecting 
this information on the 530 producers, yet you were collecting 
the information, but you were doing it visually. And I am not 
against collecting information like we are doing to help 
underserved and racial disparity communities affected by COVID, 
but I don't understand what you are doing with the information, 
and that you were collecting visual information is very 
alarming to me.
    So could you maybe tell us a little bit about what you were 
doing and if you need to do it to make sure we are reaching 
diverse populations about programming opportunities, work with 
the chair and this committee to make it happen? I know this is 
something Ms. Lee works on a lot. What is going on?
    Ms. Fong. Yes. That is a very interesting issue, and you 
are exactly right that, in order to really be able to measure 
how effective these programs are, you have got to have the 
right data across demographics to know if the assistance is 
going as it should be going and equitably.
    What we were seeing in FSA was that the Department had a 
policy that, when you collect this demographic data, it should 
be done in a way that asks the individual to self-identify as 
to which demographic groups an individual belongs to. It is not 
to be collected through the visual observation of a USDA 
employee.
    In other words, if I am a USDA employee, I shouldn't be 
looking at a program participant and saying: This--you fit into 
certain categories. That is not the appropriate way to go about 
this.
    Unfortunately, we found in that program that FSA was not 
following Department guidance, and so the data that was being 
collected was not data provided by the individual themselves, 
which therefore throws into question the validity of that data. 
And so what we were pointing out was that FSA really needs to 
bring that practice in line with departmental guidance so that 
we can have accurate data to measure the effectiveness of these 
programs.
    I hope that makes more sense.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, I would like to get to the bottom of 
what is really going on.
    And the other thing I found alarming--and it is on page 9, 
Mr. Chair--is that this information which was inappropriately 
collected and not accurately collected was possibly shared with 
third parties. So I am going to follow up on that and 
understand it better.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize Mr. Cuellar, the 
gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 
Thank you for holding this hearing today. And I also want to 
thank the USDA inspector general, the folks who are present 
here.
    I want to follow up on the--Ms. Fong, the Farmers to 
Families Food Box Program, because we had a little issue in my 
area in San Antonio. The--as you know, in San Antonio, you had 
a San Antonio event and wedding--a wedding planner with no 
experience in food distribution that got awarded a $39.1 
million contract. And, as you know, their performance wasn't 
the best, and I can say that.
    My question is, how do we prevent this from happening in 
the future?
    We also have a--with all due respect to my Californians 
also, but we had a California company, Gold Star Foods, that 
was covering all of Texas, and I am sure it was probably done 
a--quote, on a cost--probably the most cost-effective one. I 
assume they are going to say that. But we still had some issues 
in Texas.
    For example, in my southern part of the district, they 
would deliver boxes with a letter from President Trump implying 
that President Trump was providing this food.
    So I want to ask you also: Is there anything in the law 
that prevents any President--any President--I don't care if it 
is a Democrat or Republican--from giving the impression that he 
was providing this food to the folks there when it was the 
taxpayers that was doing this?
    So that is my question. How do we make sure that this 
Farmers to Families Food Box Program becomes a little bit more 
effective?
    And then my second question has to do with improper 
payments. We still have a lot of problems with improper 
payments, and I am looking at your testimony. And, without 
going into details, I would ask you--because I know you have 
provided a lot of recommendations, and if you all could provide 
to the committee and to my office recommendations that we can 
follow up to help you enforce this improper payments that are 
definitely more than 10 percent on different programs.
    So, with that, I want to say thank you for the work that 
you have been doing for many years and to your folks who are 
present here today.
    Ms. Fong. Okay. Let me comment on both of those issues, and 
then Mr. Harden and Ms. Coffey may have some additional 
comments.
    The Farmers to Families Food Box Program, yes, we are very 
aware of the media reports when they first started to appear 
about that situation in Texas. We, as you know, have ongoing 
work in our audits--on our audit side to look at that whole 
program to see how those contracts are being awarded, to make 
sure that they are following the Federal acquisition rules and 
regulations. And we anticipate having some results by the end 
of the year on that.
    To the extent that we might receive allegations of fraud in 
programs, as you know, our investigation staff would evaluate 
those allegations and, where appropriate, would take, you know, 
action to get to the bottom of it. We don't talk about anything 
ongoing publicly. But that would be our normal process if we 
received allegations of wrongdoing.
    With respect to any activity by a Federal employee or 
official that might be considered political, what we would do 
is look at it under the Hatch Act, which has certain very 
strong provisions. And, where appropriate, if we received any 
allegation like that, we would be working with the Office of 
Special Counsel that has jurisdiction. Let me just offer, on 
improper payments, that we are watching these very carefully. 
The Department's overall improper payment rate has gone up over 
the last 2 years, which is a matter of concern for everyone, I 
think. And we certainly would like to see more progress in that 
area by the Department.
    So let me just offer Gil Harden a chance to comment on any 
of those areas.
    Mr. Harden. All right. Thanks, Phyllis.
    And I will stick with the improper payments in response to 
your question, Congressman. We will definitely work with your 
office to get information on the recommendations and different 
things that we have made and have implemented and what is still 
outstanding for those programs.
    Other thoughts on improper payments that we see, not only 
in our compliance issues, but as we do samples in looking at 
calculations and eligibility, we are seeing improper payments 
to--in various programs as well.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Meng. I think I read his lips. Was that me?
    Mr. Fortenberry. I am sorry. This is Jeff Fortenberry. I am 
just trying to get the chairman's attention for just one moment 
if you will indulge me.
    Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. I am sorry to break up the flow of 
the hearing. This is delicate, because we are doing this by 
Zoom, but I am getting some concerns expressed by members on my 
side of the aisle about order here. Perhaps you could review 
the order to see if we can clarify how we are proceeding. Given 
that there has been a number of Democrats in a row, I know you 
are trying to balance out with who came in at the gavel, but 
there might be some difficulty with the Zoom.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay. I am sorry. Can we verify that? I am 
getting instructions from staff, and we are supposed to be 
going by seniority of staff [inaudible] Because I certainly 
would not want to do that intentionally.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. I am sorry, Mr. Chair. The video or 
the sound blanked out for a moment. Did you have a 
clarification on order?
    Mr. Bishop. Can I get clarification from the staff as to 
who should be next?
    Well, is Mr. Aderholt on the call? Mr. Harris. Dr. Harris.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes.
    Mr. Aderholt. It is Robert Aderholt.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay.
    Mr. Aderholt. I actually--I am on the call, but I don't 
have anything. So I will pass and give my time to someone else.
    Mr. Bishop. All right.
    Then Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that 
very much.
    Mr. Bishop. I apologize for the oversight. I was under the 
assumption that there were no other Republican members on the 
line, and I did not check it. I was relying on staff, so I 
apologize, and I assume full responsibility.
    Mr. Newhouse. Apology accepted. And I am juggling two 
committee hearings online at the same time. So we are trying to 
make that work.
    Mr. Bishop. And I see Mr.--I see Dr. Harris is also on the 
line, so, following Mr. Newhouse, I will be delighted to 
recognize Dr. Harris.
    Mr. Newhouse. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman 
Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry. I want to thank you for 
welcoming me to the subcommittee. It has been my long-term goal 
since joining the Appropriations Committee to be a member of 
the Ag Subcommittee since I am one of the few farmers in 
Congress, and I am also the former State director of 
agriculture for Washington.
    So I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that 
we can help our producers, our farmers to feed the world.
    I want to thank General Fong and your team today for 
joining us. Thank you for your work at USDA to help ensure that 
Federal taxpayer dollars are going to support the mission of 
USDA and what President Lincoln called the people's department. 
And I think that that--that label is just as true today as it 
was in the 1860s.
    While farmers and ranchers only make up about 2 percent of 
our Nation's population, they have a big job to ensure that all 
Americans and the world receive the safest and highest quality 
food supply.
    One issue raised in your testimony this morning is the 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, or the CFAP, the review 
and the administration by FSA. Your office is currently looking 
into the timeliness and accurate assistance for growers, so my 
questions are these.
    Number one, is your CFAP review part of the Biden 
administration's overall review of the program, or is it your 
review and separate from those efforts?
    Secondly, can you share with the committee any challenges 
for producers completing their application and receiving their 
appropriate payment? We want to make sure that the program is 
running efficiently and serves the intended purpose of keeping 
growers growing. One of the larger issues we want to look at is 
the integrity of our safe and secure food supply, and COVID-19 
has showed many gaps that we need to address.
    And then, thirdly, can you tell me who would--would your 
review also consider--had there not been CFAP available to our 
producers, would there have been a detriment to our food supply 
system? We all saw and witnessed in the early days of the 
pandemic the closures, and our supply chains were severely 
distressed.
    I believe that we should ensure that our growers, just like 
with small businesses around the country, needed and continue 
to need supplemental assistance to ensure growers can continue 
with their job of supplying the world food and fiber.
    So I look forward to your responses, and thank you for 
being here with us this morning.
    Ms. Fong. I am sorry. Was I muted there?
    Mr. Newhouse. There you are.
    Ms. Fong. Okay. Let me try again.
    Thank you. Let me offer a few comments, and I think Mr. 
Harden may have some additional ones.
    Just to note that, on our CFAP review, you asked whether 
this is separate from the Biden administration's review. We 
initiated our work during the last administration, and so it 
was designed--our objectives were set prior to the new 
administration taking office. And we are continuing to work the 
objectives that we set.
    It is helpful to know what changes may be coming because 
then we can assess whether we need to change course or do 
anything different. But we are continuing with our original 
design of that project.
    I understand what you are saying. I don't know what the 
policy alternatives would have been if there were not a CFAP 
program. I think the trade mitigation programs that USDA has 
provided would be interesting to think about in that context, 
and we certainly are taking a look at those right now as well.
    So let me go ahead and offer the mike to Mr. Harden for 
some additional thoughts.
    Mr. Harden. Thank you, Phyllis.
    Yes, in terms of--I just wanted to offer that we did start 
the review last year before the change of administration, as 
she said, and we have recently selected the sample of producers 
that we will look at. So, at this current time, I can't offer 
specific challenges or concerns, but that is something that we 
are looking at in terms of, you know, did they have 
difficulties there?
    And, with respect to the question on if it wasn't 
available, what would happen--and I am oversimplifying there--
it is one that I would like to go back to the team and see if 
there is a way that we can ask that of FSA, in addition to 
thinking about the trade mitigation programs in terms of what 
would have happened because I am--I feel certain there was some 
of that thought that went into the design of [inaudible].
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bishop. The reason that Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Newhouse, and 
Mr. Harris are in the latter group, I am told by staff, is 
because they entered the meeting after the gavel, and everyone 
who was recognized earlier was present before the gavel, and we 
went in the order of seniority.
    So I apologize for any misunderstanding in that regard.
    And, at this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Meng.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
inspector general and your whole team for being here today and 
for the work that you do.
    I know that we have talked a little bit about the Farmers 
to Families Food Box Program. I am glad to hear that your 
office is investigating. This has been a program, especially 
during the pandemic, that has really benefited people in my 
district. But its erratic implementation has also caused a lot 
of chaos and uncertainty.
    Lines at food banks and pantries are longer than I have 
ever seen in my life. They wrap around, you know, five, six 
city blocks at a time.
    And so not only have there been allegations of vendor fraud 
across the country, but unclear rule changes in each round, 
lack of communication, vendor changes, and then lack of 
accountability, which have prevented hungry people in Queens, 
New York, from being able to access food they so desperately 
need.
    A few of the issues I wanted to ask about. One, there seems 
to be different rules each round with no real communication to 
the nonprofits or pantries. And what has happened and what we 
have literally seen and heard from pantries is they will find 
out, like, on a Friday afternoon that the food that they are 
supposed to get and distribute on Monday will not be arriving.
    Second, after the first round, only accepting contracts 
from vendors that could provide mixed boxes--meat, dairy, 
produce--this meant that the culture pantries, who also serve 
many of my halal-observant constituents, could no longer 
participate in the program.
    And, lastly, during certain rounds, vendors with extra 
supplies were barred from sending boxes to other boroughs or 
counties whose vendors came up short. So, like, a vendor was 
only allowed to supply--in the county of Manhattan, Brooklyn, 
and Staten Island, told us that they had enough for Queens and 
the Bronx, but that they weren't allowed to send it to us.
    So, if you could tell me a little bit about the scope of 
your investigation of this program. Will it only include fraud 
accusations, or will it provide a larger, more detailed 
accounting?
    Ms. Fong. Okay. Let me just offer a few comments, and I 
think Mr. Harden might have some additional detail. Thank you 
for all the information you have provided. I think that is very 
helpful to fleshing out our understanding.
    We are--in our review of the program, we are focused on how 
it is being designed and delivered and how the funding is 
allocated to contractors and whether the contractors are 
actually carrying out their responsibilities under their 
contracts.
    I think that is an interesting question about the unclear 
rule changes and communication. Let me ask Gil if he has any 
thoughts on that and whether we need to follow up on that.
    Mr. Harden. I will do some follow up on it, and I 
appreciate the questions. But just one point of clarification 
just for informational purposes.
    In looking at the Family to Food Box Program, GAO, 
Government Accountability Office, has a strong interest in 
looking at this program as well as we do. So, as we have said 
in response to other questions, we try to not duplicate 
efforts.
    So, when we started our work, we--it was very early in the 
program, so we focused--our focus was round one. As we moved 
through the program, we know GAO is looking at other rounds so 
that we are not looking at the same thing, but we can talk to 
them about--and, you know, I have heard about the different 
changes between rounds. Some are characterized to make it 
better. Others, maybe not. Maybe we can ask some questions to 
get some clarity around that.
    Ms. Meng. Just in general, so if we can, you know, get a 
clear picture whether it is you or we have to work with GAO. 
You know, who received these boxes, how was the communication 
managed, and were they distributed equally according to 
population and need, or, like, what were the metrics used? All 
of that would be really helpful.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
    Is Mr. Aderholt still on? Would you like to ask any 
questions at this time, Mr. Aderholt?
    Mr. Aderholt. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I am fine. Like I said, I 
am on the call, but I will defer my time to others.
    Mr. Bishop. All right. If you are deferring your time, I 
would like to recognize Dr. Harris.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Fong, as you know, you know, broadband has been brought 
up already. I have a very specific question about that before I 
go into my second question.
    Obviously some--well, some companies in my district have 
raised concerns regarding capacity representations that have 
been made by some of the companies applying for funding. Their 
concern is that these capacity representations couldn't be met, 
and that will result in an unnecessary delay of getting this 
broadband coverage into our rural areas, something that we 
know, obviously, during COVID is such a vital issue.
    So, specifically, I have to ask you: What role would the 
USDA OIG, your office have in ensuring that entities fulfill 
the representations they have made in applying for the funds? 
And, of course, we have a whole lot more funds now because of 
COVID. Is that something that your office would be looking into 
because you implied that you are going to be taking a fresh 
look at the broadband initiatives and how they are being rolled 
out.
    Ms. Fong. Yes. That is an interesting question. As you 
know, we--broadly speaking, we do audits and inspections, and 
we do investigations. If there is a situation where someone has 
a concern that there may be a false statement or fraud or 
something rising to that level, we have intake for those kinds 
of concerns, and we would evaluate it and look at it from an 
investigative perspective.
    If people are concerned about how the program itself is 
structured, whether there is adequate due diligence being given 
to the awards of the contracts, whether the program office is 
doing the appropriate steps before awarding contracts, we could 
consider doing an audit or an inspection of that aspect.
    And so, depending on the situation, if people want to come 
forward with concerns, we--that is how we would analyze them.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and I may bring some to 
your attention.
    And, just briefly, because you have been doing this a 
while, the SNAP program--you know, I usually ask you about it 
every year because it is a huge program, and even a small 
percent of fraud in a huge program is a lot of dollars.
    So I would like your kind of historic perspective on where 
it is--what has been happening to fraud in the program over the 
last few years? Is it getting better? Is it getting worse? And 
where do you see the largest fraud occurring right now, and are 
there other things we can do to make the program--you know, to 
decrease the amount of fraud because fraud, on two levels, is 
bad. It decreases the amount of moneys that should be going 
where they are, and it also decreases confidence--public 
confidence in the program.
    So if you could give us a perspective on that.
    Ms. Fong. Yes. You are right. SNAP is probably the biggest 
program, or one of the biggest in USDA's portfolio, and we 
devote quite a bit of effort every year to investigations in 
that area as well as to audit oversight. To give you just an 
overview, last year, we spent about a third of our 
investigative resources on that area running cases and dealing 
with allegations. There were some in the district of Maryland 
in the last few years that were fairly significant, if I 
recall.
    We don't keep a running sense of whether the fraud is going 
up or down because we have much more than our workers can 
handle in terms of allegations and handling those things. So we 
know that, you know, where there is money, there are people who 
take advantage of that.
    Let me just let Ann comment a little bit on fraud in the 
program, some insights.
    Ms. Coffey. Thank you, Phyllis.
    So, as Phyllis said, yes. We do spend a good portion of our 
resources assessing where there could be potential fraud. The 
one thing I will say is that the use of data analytics has 
helped us to kind of identify specifically where we can 
allocate our resources.
    Usually the fraud that we have seen where it is sort of in 
the highest percentage is actually on the eastern seaboard. We 
have a little bit in each State, but, for some reason, in more 
of the urban areas, we do tend to see higher rates of fraud in 
those cases.
    But, again, we have worked very closely with our Office of 
Analytics and Innovation as well as the USDA's Food Nutrition 
Service to try to identify and really focus in on where we can 
make the most bang for our buck, where we can effectively put 
our resources in going after sort of the most significant fraud 
cases. We do get a number of cases that don't--necessarily, we 
can't possibly handle all of them, so we really do try to focus 
on the larger ones.
    So it is a little bit difficult for us to be able to say 
exactly how the fraud rate rises or falls in a particular year 
other than to say we know the amount of resources that we are 
expending.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to the chair of the 
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, the 
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very 
much looking forward to serving on this subcommittee and to 
working with you and our colleagues.
    Ms. Fong, I appreciate your service and your vigilance. I 
do want to ask you about the Florida citrus program. In your 
office's fiscal year 2021 plan, you stated that your office 
will continue to examine the Florida citrus block grant 
program. Can you give us a brief outline of the issues your 
office is looking at here?
    Ms. Fong. Yes. We are near the end of that review, I 
believe, and I know Gil will want to offer some comments on 
that. We are looking to see how the program payments were made, 
whether they were made in accordance with guidelines and were 
made to eligible producers. And I think we will have results 
shortly, but let me ask Gil to offer some specifics.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Mr. Harden. Yes, Phyllis, that does cover the type of work 
that we are doing. And because we haven't issued the report, I 
can't talk specifics about the findings. I am sorry about that, 
but I am happy to talk about them when we can.
    We are close to issuing the draft report to the agency for 
comment. I would expect the report to be out in final by summer 
at the latest.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. By summer? Okay. All right. And so 
there is no--there is no specifics you can even talk about in 
terms of an outline of the issues that you are looking at?
    Mr. Harden. Not at this time.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I want to switch to the topic 
of animal welfare. Congress included a specific $500,000 
increase to USDA OIG in the fiscal year 2021 appropriations 
package for the purpose of addressing illegal animal fighting. 
And I know you addressed this--and I appreciate it--in your 
opening statement because animal fighting is not only cruel and 
unethical, but it can also spread disease.
    Can you provide the committee with any details of what your 
office is doing with the increase that Congress provided?
    And, also, can you speak to how often your office or USDA 
encounters other potential criminal activity in your pursuit of 
animal fighting cases, and how related animal criminal activity 
might interfere with the investigation?
    Ms. Fong. Yes. These are significant cases in our 
portfolio. I will offer some comments, and then Ann might have 
some additional ones.
    We have 59 open cases involving animal fighting currently 
in 27 States. So it is a widespread issue and a significant 
issue for us. We anticipate that we will make good use of the 
$500,000 earmarked for those cases.
    To give you an idea, last year, in fiscal year 2020, we 
spent over a million dollars in salaries alone for our 
investigators who run these cases. And they are dangerous cases 
because they can involve other issues, such as the presence of 
firearms, narcotics, people who have been convicted of other 
felonies. There are some very significant concerns that we run 
into when we do these cases, so we have to make sure we 
approach them correctly.
    So let me just ask Ann if she wants to add something here.
    Ms. Coffey. Thank you, Phyllis. So we do, as Phyllis 
mentioned, have a significant number of animal fighting cases 
throughout the country. These tend to be labor intensive for 
our investigators. They have worked very hard. And, during the 
COVID pandemic, they have continued to be out there doing these 
investigations because these require them to be present. You 
can't just do these sort of looking at records.
    And Phyllis is correct. We often work these cases jointly 
with other law enforcement, Federal law enforcement agencies, 
such as Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives or the Drug 
Enforcement Agency. So they are significant cases. When we go, 
we typically see other criminal activity that is occurring at 
them, and obviously that is of concern.
    We usually are able to work out the differing aspects--the 
different criminal allegations so they don't necessarily impede 
our investigation, but we are always mindful in working with 
our partner agencies when we are doing these investigations and 
they do impact other criminal statutes that are in play.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
    I believe that we have completed our first round of 
questions, and I would like to inquire if members would like to 
pursue a second round. It is not necessary.
    Mr. Fortenberry, I see your hand. Would you----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Would you like to have a second round?
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. I would like a second round.
    Mr. Bishop. Very good. Then I will allow you to go ahead 
with your second round of questions, and I will follow you.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate it.
    Let me return to the earlier question. Mr. Harden, were you 
able to secure the information that I asked during the 
intervening time?
    Mr. Harden. Yes, sir, I was.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. What is your answer?
    Mr. Harden. So, yes. In their response--and we did make the 
recommendation to the mission area at the Department. They 
indicated a multiyear approach to solving this problem.
    In the current fiscal year, 2021, they are planning on to 
coordinate among the agencies and do some strategic planning in 
terms of what type of mechanism would work best for getting the 
information together.
    In 2022, they plan on looking at how to develop that 
mechanism, and they do believe that there may be budgetary 
resources for this, so they would implement that once they got 
that in fiscal year 2024.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Mr. Harden, it is not your problem. 
You are just the messenger here, but guess what? That is way 
too late, and we need this data much faster, so I will pursue 
that conversation with the chairman, and--but I would like to 
hear what your recommendations were.
    Mr. Harden. That was the one recommendation for this 
report.
    Mr. Fortenberry. So you recommended that timeline, or that 
was the information they gave back to you?
    Mr. Harden. No, no, no, no. We recommended that they 
implement a mechanism for collecting this information so they 
would have the information available. This is their response--
--
    Mr. Fortenberry. Do you perceive that as peculiar that it 
would take 3 years to get this done?
    Mr. Harden. You know, I can't say that I am an expert in 
what they would need, and----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I am not either, but that seems like 
a long time----
    Mr. Harden. In the----
    Mr. Fortenberry. We are going to need this data sooner 
based upon the dictates of the previous law that is being 
implemented now. So why don't you gently convey that message, 
if you would, please.
    Mr. Harden. Yes, sir. I would be glad to.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Secondly, back to Ms. Fong, it is a 
question about your budget.
    In 2019 or--I am sorry--in 2020--might want to pencil out. 
There is a couple of numbers here. In the Recovery Act of 2009, 
$28 billion was allocated. Your office, the OIG, received $22.5 
million for oversight responsibilities of that money.
    As your testimony pointed out, the first three COVID bills 
this last year, you--we provided $61 billion. However, Congress 
only provided you with $750,000 as a part of that for 
oversight.
    In the next COVID bill under consideration, it would bring 
the total of $76 billion of new spending to USDA, and you are 
allocated to receive $3.3 million for oversight.
    So the proportion of dollars has gone up significantly 
compared to the proportion of dollars to your agency for 
oversight. Is that a problem?
    Ms. Fong. Well, I think you have put your finger on a 
question for us. We can only do as much oversight as we have 
resources to do. We felt that we had a good amount of funds for 
The Recovery Act, which they were no-year funds at the time, or 
at least they covered a number of years.
    Mr. Fortenberry. So I didn't offer you--I didn't do the 
quick math with the percent. So would you say the Recovery Act 
allocation to you as a percent would be a fair representation 
of empowering your agency to do its necessary work, and how 
does that percent compare with the latest expenditures?
    Ms. Fong. Yeah. I am not good at math on the run either.
    Mr. Fortenberry. No, I am. I just didn't do it.
    Ms. Fong. I think it is fair to say that resources have 
changed and ebbed and flowed, and I am happy to hear 3.3 
million is in the current bill. That is higher than we had 
initially thought. I think any funds that are given to us, we 
would put to very good use. As you know, we have a number of 
projects in play already.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I am sorry to interrupt you, Ms. 
Fong. I have only got a minute left, but obviously I have 
raised an issue. If that is a level of concern, given the 
important breadth and perspective on the committee--I mean, you 
are being asked to do a lot--I think it is important that you 
communicate that back to us, please----
    Ms. Fong. Yes.
    Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. If funds are insufficient.
    Let me ask you a question about broadband as well. Dr. 
Harris had touched upon this. So we have given you over--we 
have allocated over $2 billion in the last several years for 
this. What are the metrics for success?
    Ms. Fong. On the part of the program?
    Mr. Fortenberry. Correct.
    Ms. Fong. That is a very good question.
    We would want to go back and look at RD's metrics to see if 
they have any and if they make sense. We have not looked at 
this program, I think, in several years, at a minimum.
    Mr. Fortenberry. So let me interject. Again, I am running 
out of time, but, during last year, the Secretary came. And I 
intend to pursue this with the current secretary. Listen, the 
reality is we can't measure this just in terms of expenditures 
and wire laid. We need to measure the impacts of this 
assistance.
    And we have made a digital leap, but is it promoting 
telehealth and distance learning, telework, e-commerce, 
precision agriculture, all the things that are essential to 
creating an ecosystem of livability in rural communities? That 
is the fundamental purpose of rural development.
    We have got a huge, huge tool in our hands here. I want to 
make sure, though, that our metrics for success are allied with 
the expenditures. That is my consideration.
    Ms. Fong. I think that is an excellent question.
    Mr. Fortenberry. We may need to follow up with you on that 
given--I doubt there is a third round. That may be in the form 
of a letter, but I have verbally communicated, so I would like 
some ongoing dialogue about that, please.
    Ms. Fong. Okay.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Let me turn back to a couple of other items that I had not 
covered.
    One of them has to do with the Rural Housing Service. A 
report issued last year identified instances where inaccuracies 
were found in determining tenant eligibility and rent 
assistance amounts to tenants in the USDA Multifamily and 
Rental Assistance Program. These inaccuracies resulted in 
underpayments as well as overpayments, are keeping limited 
resources from reaching tenants who critically need assistance. 
It is well documented that only one in four eligible for 
assistance receive it, effectively determining eligibility is 
paramount to program integrity and facilitating maximum 
assistance to those who need it.
    So you identified the millions in rent miscalculations in 
the report. USDA said it would complete corrective actions by 
December 31st, 2020. Do you know if the previous administration 
did so before they left office?
    Ms. Fong. I think Mr. Harden might have some insight on 
that.
    Mr. Bishop. You need to unmute, Mr. Harden.
    Mr. Harden. Sorry. I thought I had pushed the button 
correctly.
    I appreciate the question. We will need to check in with 
the Chief Financial Officer's Office to see if they implemented 
those by the end of December.
    Mr. Bishop. Another question. In your testimony, you say 
that you are pursuing the identification of various fraud 
schemes associated with the Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program, which provides assistance to certain agricultural 
producers whose operations were directly impacted by the 
pandemic. This is troubling. Can you give us some idea of the 
scale of the fraud in terms of number of cases or the dollar 
value involved?
    Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. And I think, at 
this stage of the game, we are pursuing these analytics 
approaches because we want to get an idea of the potential 
scale. So let me ask Jenny to comment on the work she is doing 
with investigations--our analytics and investigations offices 
on this.
    Ms. Rone. Thank you, Phyllis, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We are working very closely with the Office of 
Investigations in developing an analytics tool that utilizes 
tripwires, these understanding of the schemes of the known 
knowns on these cases, in order to better investigate the 
entire universe and look at all of the payments and how they 
relate to those tripwires.
    So that is an ongoing process, and we are seeing good 
success with being able to work with investigations on 
establishing those analytics from a proactive perspective.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I see I have a minute and 40 
seconds.
    Last September, you issued an audit report on the Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service's oversight of the National 
Veterinary Stockpile. This NVS is the animal version of the 
Strategic National Stockpile and is intended to allow an 
immediate response in the case of serious animal disease 
outbreaks.
    You found weaknesses that seem to mirror those of FNS that 
came to light during the current pandemic. You said, for 
example, that APHIS hasn't conducted a complete physical 
inventory of the NVS supplies and equipment since January of 
2017, and you made eight recommendations, and the agency 
concurred with all of the findings and recommendations.
    And, in light of the issues involving that, what are the 
key lessons from your review of the National Vet Stockpile that 
you would recommend to agencies for the COVID vaccination 
efforts?
    Ms. Fong. That is a really interesting question. As you 
know, we started that work before the pandemic, the COVID 
pandemic, struck the country, and we, and as we issued the 
report, we think that there may be an opportunity here for 
APHIS to take a look at the recommendations we made to see if 
they apply to rollout of pandemic vaccines.
    And the reason we say that is because we understand that 
USDA, especially APHIS, is part of the initiative in a number 
of areas around the country to deliver COVID vaccines to 
people, which is a different role than normal.
    And we think that there may be some--some of our findings 
and recommendations may be applicable to this situation. APHIS 
might want to consider whether our recommendations on storage 
of vaccines, on the need for complete inventory of equipment 
and supplies, on the need for regular inspections of the 
inventory, and oversight of contractors, and dealing with 
emergency procedures would possibly, you know, apply to the 
rollout of the COVID vaccine process.
    So I think that is a really interesting question to ask.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Fong.
    Mr. Fortenberry, you, I believe, have additional followup?
    Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, I think I have given enough 
recommendations to the OIG for today.
    You seem relieved, Ms. Fong.
    Ms. Fong. Enjoying the dialogue.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an 
offline conversation with you about some of the things that are 
raised, given our mutual interest in some of these questions, 
if you would be so kind.
    Mr. Bishop. I would be delighted, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, sir, 
for the hearing.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And let me thank Ms. Fong, Ms. 
Coffey, Mr. Harden, and Ms. Rone for your testimony, and for 
spending the morning with us.
    Along with what we have discussed, we will forward 
additional questions to you for the record, homework, and we 
appreciate your diligence in getting your responses back to us 
in a timely manner.
    Thank you for what you do. Thank you for what you mean to 
the efficiency of the Department of Agriculture.
    And, with that, Mr. Fortenberry, do you have any closing 
remarks?
    Mr. Fortenberry. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
today's hearing.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    And I want to thank all of the members who were in 
attendance, and thank you to our staff who worked hard to put 
this hearing together.
    And, with that, this subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

                                            Tuesday, March 9, 2021.

                 FDA'S FOREIGN DRUG INSPECTIONS PROGRAM

                                WITNESS

MARY DENIGAN-MACAULEY, PH.D., DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE, PUBLIC HEALTH & 
    PRIVATE MARKETS, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Good morning.
    This hearing will now come to order of the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few 
housekeeping matters. For today's hearing, the chair or staff 
designated by the chair may mute participants' microphones when 
they are not under recognition for purposes of eliminating 
inadvertent background noise. Members are responsible for 
muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not 
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to 
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, then the staff 
will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next issue in order until the issue is resolved, and you 
will retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock 
on your screen that will show how much time is remaining.
    At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn yellow. At 30 
seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind 
members that their time is almost expired. When your time has 
expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize 
the next member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will begin with the chair 
and ranking member, then alternating between majority and 
minority, with members present at the time the hearing starts 
in order of seniority. After that, members not present at the 
time the hearing starts will be recognized in the order that 
they join.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff. 
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on at 
this time.
    Well, I would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing 
on this very, very important topic. Our witness today is Dr. 
Mary Denigan-Macauley, and she has been at the Government 
Accountability Office since 2001, has a wealth of knowledge on 
the issues that we will be discussing today. We look forward to 
hearing from you and we thank you for your close attention and 
your hard work to highlight this issue.
    Today three quarters of the supply of active pharmaceutical 
ingredients, and about half of the supply of finished doses in 
the U.S. market are produced overseas. In the past, the FDA 
focused on hitting inspection targets to ensure certain 
facilities were being inspected on a predictable schedule. The 
rapid and continued growth in foreign facilities has made it 
impossible to continue this approach.
    FDA now employs a risk-based model for selecting and 
prioritizing its inspections. The past 30 years have brought 
tremendous growth in the global pharmaceutical market. The GAO 
has been studying the FDA's foreign drug inspections program 
for nearly that entire period. And since 2009, GAO has placed 
FDA's ability to oversee the global pharmaceutical supply 
chain, which includes the foreign drug inspections program, on 
its high-risk list. This is unacceptable.
    The highest priority of the FDA is to ensure the safety and 
efficacy of medical products. The countless Americans who 
depend on life-saving drugs each day should not have to worry 
about whether that drug was produced in a dangerous or unsafe 
facility. I have been very troubled by recent news reports 
about the dangers of tainted drugs and unacceptable 
manufacturing practices coming from overseas. Instances of 
contaminants making their way into blood pressure medications, 
reports from inspectors who have observed paper shredding 
campaigns, and descriptions of inspectors playing a cat-and-
mouse game with foreign manufacturers intent on hiding 
problems, paints a very frightening picture of the global 
health of our drug supply. Inspections are some of our most 
valuable tools in the fight against fraud, and it sounds like 
we have got to do a better job.
    Now, GAO has really studied this issue since 1998 and 
weaknesses in the FDA oversight of foreign drug manufacturers 
has become even more concerning, because FDA now estimates that 
74 percent of our active pharmaceutical ingredients, which are 
the primary ingredients in our drugs, and over 54 percent of 
the finished doses, which are the tablets, the capsules, and 
the pills that contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients 
that are taken by patients, that those are manufactured 
overseas.
    Forty percent of all foreign plants exporting drugs to the 
U.S. are in India and China, while most foreign inspections in 
those countries, FDA found that those plants received 
significantly lower scores for quality on average than the EU 
or U.S. plants. According to analysis conducted by the GAO, 60 
percent of foreign inspections are classified as voluntary 
action indicator. I note that, although the corrective actions 
are voluntary, it means that there is still issues in those 
plants.
    There are really--really serious issues are in our 
inspections of foreign plants. While the domestic inspections 
are almost always conducted on an unannounced basis, the 
majority of foreign plants receive notice of the inspection as 
much as 12 weeks in advance. In addition, the foreign 
inspections typically involve weeks of on-site work. This 
raises questions about whether that is parity between foreign 
and domestic inspections and what sorts of issues FDA may not 
be catching when it comes to foreign facilities.
    FDA relies on the manufacturers, the companies for 
translation services in many instances, and that raises 
questions about the validity of the translations. There have 
been allegations as far back as 1993 that the FDA management 
frequently downgrades the inspectors' recommended actions.
    In 1996, GAO found that two-thirds of the inspectors' 
recommended actions were downgraded. Downgrading for findings 
is a recurring claim by recent whistleblowers. In May 2019, The 
New York Times published an article that calls into question 
the quality, the safety, and the reliability of brand and 
generic drugs that were made overseas, and it chronicles a 
former FDA consumer safety officer who found, while he was 
inspecting foreign manufacturing plants in both China and India 
between 2012 and 2018, during the course of his years, he 
discovered fraud and deception in 67 of the 86 drug 
manufacturing plants that he inspected.
    He routinely uncovered hidden laboratories, fake quality 
control, defective sterilization machines, toxic impurities, 
and the article also outlines how, from 2013 to 2018, the FDA 
downgraded the regulatory sanctions against more than 100 
Indian plants, changing the designation from official action 
indicated to voluntary action indicated.
    NBC, in May of 2019, highlighted a different FDA inspector 
who had also spent time in China and India inspecting 
manufacturing facilities. One plant in Linhai, China had 
numerous incidences, including anomalies in testing, unknown 
impurities. And the inspector recommended a warning letter to 
the facility which would bar it from gaining approvals to 
produce new drugs at the facility.
    The FDA reportedly overruled his recommendation. In 
December of 2016, GAO reported that a number of foreign drug 
facilities--that there were a number that had never been 
inspected. And that about one in three, 1,000 of the 
approximately 3,000 foreign manufacturing facilities had not 
been likely inspected.
    It identified 189 of the 572 facilities in India, 243 of 
the 535 facilities in China, that may never have been 
inspected.
    It is very, very frustrating. And according to the reports 
in 2013, the FDA created a pilot program in India to reduce the 
reliance on preannounced inspections, and to perform more 
short-notice, or unannounced inspections.
    According to the reports of that 2013 experiment, it 
exposed widespread malfeasance that had otherwise been hidden 
because of the advanced warning notice system. Among the 
findings, the inspections found bird infestations, missing 
samples, fake laboratories, all of which negatively impact drug 
quality and safety.
    Under the pilot program, the FDA issued a 60 percent 
increase in official action indicated findings. That program 
was eliminated in 2015, and FDA has never really explained why. 
So, in order to address some of these issues, our fiscal year 
2021 bill included $3.5 million for the FDA to increase efforts 
to perform the unannounced inspections in India and China.
    So, today, we are here to discuss how the FDA conducts 
these foreign inspections, compared to our domestic ones, how 
the FDA's inspection efforts have been impacted by COVID-19, 
and how the FDA can improve its foreign drug inspections 
program moving forward. To put it simply, we will use what we 
learn today to keep FDA accountable, and most importantly, to 
make them do their job.
    Importance of this task cannot be overstated, considering 
that nearly all foreign inspections have been on pause since 
the outbreak of COVID-19. Whether this requires more resources 
to enhance our domestic manufacturing capabilities, or whether 
this requires larger investments to deploy more inspectors 
abroad or both, I am committed to ensuring that the FDA has the 
right tools, and that it carries out the right policies to 
address this crisis.
    The health, safety, and welfare of the American people are 
at great peril. We have got to strengthen the inspection 
programs, particularly in China and India, and reduce the 
practice of providing months' notice. I hope it will become an 
important tool to help address the inspections issues that have 
arisen and that are with COVID-19 and beyond.
    So Dr. Denigan-Macauley, I want to, again, express my 
appreciation for your participation today. I look forward to 
hearing from you about what challenges remain, how we can help 
improve the foreign drug inspections program moving forward.
    And at this time, let me ask our distinguished ranking 
member, my partner, Mr. Fortenberry, if he would like to 
provide any opening remarks, and if so--and I presume he 
would--I would like to recognize him at this time.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Before I 
begin my own remarks, let me commend you for that passionate, 
excellent summary of why we are here today. I so appreciate 
your leadership on this question and so many others.
    This hearing today is about one thing, one thing only: Are 
our drugs safe? And the COVID pandemic has shown us that we 
have a much-overlooked problem. In the name of global 
profiteering, we have enabled the outsourcing of pharmaceutical 
production to foreign countries, a significant portion of it to 
the very place of origin of the coronavirus in China.
    Approximately 75 percent, as was mentioned of active drug 
ingredients, and 50 percent of finished drugs on the American 
market from ibuprofen to antibiotics, are produced outside of 
America. Even if we vigilantly inspect the domestic 
manufacturing process, we cannot possibly get a handle on drug 
safety when our drugs are sourced from over 150 countries. 
There is an inherent and unfair duality, however, in how FDA's 
foreign and domestic inspections are carried out. It is my 
understanding that FDA inspectors normally conduct surprise 
inspections in the United States to ensure that drug companies 
are producing medicine in a safe, clean, and responsible 
manner.
    But as we just heard from our chairman, when it comes to 
foreign inspections, the FDA customarily gives companies 
advanced notice, often as much as 12 weeks, enabling drug 
suppliers plenty of time to clean up their act.
    This is counterproductive, and it is wrong. And it creates 
an unlevel playing field for companies trying to manufacture 
drugs in the United States. Compounding these problems, FDA 
inspectors also face obstruction, coercion, and sometimes, 
deception in other places.
    At the Health and Human Services Inspector General hearing 
last year, I asked why so much drug production has moved 
overseas. I already knew the primary answer, of course: to 
capitalize on low wages and lax environmental safety and labor 
standards in other countries.
    My fuller intention was to probe whether or not U.S. law 
and regulatory structure may perversely encourage offshoring. 
These troubling dynamics take on a special urgency, given what 
we have gone through this past year with this pandemic. Solving 
these issues became easier, it will become easier when we fully 
identify and inspect foreign sources of drugs and drug 
ingredients. But with the bulk of our foreign drug supply 
originating from, again, a country that suppressed news about 
the origin, severity, and timing of COVID-19, I am not very 
optimistic.
    Last year, it needs to be pointed out, that Chairman Bishop 
and I worked on a change in the appropriation bill to ensure 
that FDA has the power to refuse drugs at our border when the 
agency is not granted sufficient access to information about 
how medicines are produced in foreign-based facilities. I am 
just going to repeat that sentence, Mr. Chairman, because I 
think it is very important to highlight.
    Chairman Bishop and I worked on a change in last year's 
bill, law, to ensure that FDA has the power to refuse drugs at 
the border when the agency is not granted sufficient access to 
information about how medicines are produced in foreign-based 
facilities. It is a powerful tool, and I hope it is utilized 
well.
    Mr. Chairman, if the pandemic has taught us anything, it is 
that ``made in America'' must apply to more than just our 
military. America is becoming inordinately dependent on other 
countries for the manufacture of many of our pharmaceutical 
ingredients and final drug products. I would like to see ``made 
in America'' on the prescription bottle. I would certainly feel 
better.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's hearing.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    At this time I am pleased to recognize the chairwoman of 
the Full Committee of Appropriations, the gentlelady from 
Connecticut, Chair Rosa DeLauro.
    The Chair. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chair, and let me 
thank you and Ranking Member Fortenberry for holding this very, 
very important hearing this morning, and I think it does bear 
repeating: I want to thank you both for your leadership in this 
area and what you have done to really to give FDA the 
authority, if you will, to deny drugs at the border without the 
transparency that is required. So thank you for being vigorous 
about this oversight. Let me also say a thank you to Dr. Mary 
Denigan-Macauley for testifying this morning.
    Now, when most Americans take a pill out of a medicine 
cabinet, they may not think twice about where the ingredients 
in it came from, but as foreign manufacturing of drugs has 
grown considerably in recent years, it is now estimated that 
around 80 percent of all drug ingredients come from foreign 
countries.
    Unfortunately, the Food and Drug Administration's foreign 
drug inspections program has failed to keep up. As our witness 
will testify today, GAO has studied FDA's oversight of the 
global pharmaceutical supply chain since 1998, and the results 
are not good. GAO has included the FDA on its high-risk series 
since 2009. One of the main problems is that FDA gives foreign 
drug manufacturers, as has been stated, but not American ones, 
advanced notice of inspections, 12 weeks of advanced notice and 
that has allowed foreign manufacturers to fabricate or shred 
data, use hidden laboratories, or secretly repeat tests before 
the FDA inspectors arrived.
    By contrast, in unannounced inspections, investigators have 
found issues the plants were unable to hide: important 
manufacturing records tossed in a trash bin, bird and insect 
infestations, even human urine puddled on the floor. Clearly, 
that is not a safe or sterile manufacturing area. These shoddy 
practices result in drugs with unapproved ingredients, toxic 
impurities, and dangerous particulates making their way into 
American medicine cabinets.
    In 2007, 2008, hundreds, hundreds of Americans died from 
contaminated Heparin, an anticoagulant drug manufactured 
overseas. In 2018 and 2019, dozens of blood pressure and anti-
ulcer drugs were recalled because they contained more than 200 
times the acceptable limit of a known carcinogen. But now, 
because of the pandemic, the FDA has stopped nearly all 
overseas inspections and, unfortunately, this means the FDA's 
work to prevent potentially tainted drugs from entering the 
U.S. is even more difficult.
    The GAO report was stunning, and that even so, that the FDA 
uses alternative inspection tools to maintain some oversight of 
drug manufacturing quality, while inspections are paused, and 
the tools rely on inspections conducted by foreign regulators. 
And requesting and reviewing records and other information and 
sampling and testing drugs, FDA has determined that inspections 
conducted by certain European regulators are equivalent to and 
can be substituted for an FDA inspection.
    That is wrong, because other tools provide useful 
information, but are not equivalent to what rate of inspection 
that we deal with at the FDA. And we also know that the GAO 
reported, from fiscal year 2016 to 2018, both foreign and 
domestic inspections decreased. Today, we are taking a look; 
and, again, I compliment the chair and the ranking member, a 
closer look at how FDA's inspections have been impacted by this 
pandemic; critically, how we can ensure the FDA has the 
resources that it needs to restart and approve its foreign drug 
inspections program.
    Americans trust and rely on these medicines to take care of 
themselves and their families. Many are sick and vulnerable, 
and many more are elderly. They should not have to fear whether 
the drugs they take could make their symptoms worse or even 
kill them. They should be able to trust that unsafe drugs will 
never get into their medicine cabinets in the first place.
    And with that, I thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 
Fortenberry.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Chairwoman DeLauro. I 
normally recognize the full committee Ranking Member, Ms. 
Granger, but I don't believe she has joined us as of yet. If 
she should join us, we will allow her to give remarks upon her 
arrival.
    Dr. Denigan-Macauley, welcome. And without objection, your 
entire written testimony will be included in the record. I 
recognize you now for your statement, which I hope you will 
summarize, and then we will proceed with questions. You can 
summarize or you can give the entire statement, it is up to 
you, but the more time that you leave for questions, I think, 
the better. The committee will be able to delve into the issues 
surrounding this very, very serious crisis.
    So, at this time, I am delighted to recognize Dr. Denigan-
Macauley for your testimony, please, ma'am. And welcome.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman 
Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, Chairwoman DeLauro, and 
members of the subcommittee. And I am happy to do a summary 
rather than read the entire statement.
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on FDA's 
foreign drug inspection program. FDA is responsible for 
overseeing the safety and effectiveness of drugs marketed in 
the United States, regardless of where they are produced. 
Today, the majority of drugs destined for the United States are 
manufactured overseas. A critical element in FDA's oversight of 
these drugs is inspections.
    However, since 1998, as you have pointed out, we have 
raised concerns about the effectiveness of FDA's oversight of 
this increasingly global supply chain, including how few 
inspections FDA had conducted overseas, not knowing how many 
foreign drug establishments were actually subject to 
inspection, and persistent vacancies among investigators who 
conducted the inspections.
    We also identified unique challenges that influence the 
manner in which FDA conducted these inspections overseas, 
raising questions about their equivalency to those in the 
United States. For example, as you also mentioned, FDA provided 
foreign establishments significant notice that an investigator 
was coming, compared to no notice in the U.S.
    And FDA relied on these establishments for translation 
services, raising questions about the accuracy of the 
information. In 2009, we added FDA's oversight of medical 
products to our high-risk series, citing the agency's inability 
to ensure the quality of drugs manufactured overseas. I am 
pleased to report that FDA has made some progress over the two 
decades.
    For example, FDA is gaining a better understanding of which 
drug establishments are subject to inspection. The agency has 
also increased the number of overseas inspections, and in 
fiscal year 2015, for the first time, the number of foreign 
inspections surpassed domestic, with 40 percent in India and 
China better reflecting where manufacturing is occurring.
    While we applaud the progress, challenges remain. For 
example, as we learn from investigators, and on our site visits 
to India and China just prior to the pandemic, FDA continues to 
rely on the establishments for translations, and still provides 
up to 3 months advanced notice for most of these, giving 
manufacturers the chance to fix problems before an investigator 
even arrives.
    In addition, investigators have little flexibility to 
extend their time at a facility, to follow leads due to back-
to-back inspections, and they are often alone inspecting 
massive manufacturing campuses. Further, since its peak in 
2016, the number of inspections have generally declined, which 
FDA attributed, in part, to inspector vacancies.
    Moreover, since March of 2020, citing concerns for the 
safety of its employees during the pandemic, FDA has now 
largely paused foreign and domestic inspections only conducting 
a handful of what the agency deemed mission critical. FDA has 
used alternative inspection tools to maintain some oversight of 
drug manufacturing quality during this pause. These tools 
include relying on inspections conducted by foreign regulators, 
reviewing establishment records, and testing drugs at the 
border.
    While these tools can provide useful information, most do 
not substitute for an inspection, and FDA will face a backlog 
as it was unable to complete more than 1,000 of its planned 
inspections for fiscal year 2020. In January, we recommended 
that FDA make plans to address this backlog and assess how 
alternative tools can be used to augment or replace 
inspections. FDA concurred with both.
    The globalization of drug manufacturing presented FDA with 
new challenges, many of which have been exacerbated by the 
pandemic. While the agency has taken steps to adapt, further 
action will be needed to ensure it can continue to fulfill its 
oversight responsibilities in the future.
    Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, and 
members of the subcommittee, for holding this important 
hearing. This concludes my prepared remarks. I am happy to 
respond to any questions you may have.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Bishop [inaudible]. After that, I will recognize 
members who were not present at the time the hearing was called 
to order. Each member will have 5 minutes in each round, so 
please be mindful of your time. At this time, I will yield to 
myself for the first round of questions--I will tell you what, 
I will defer my questions to the chair of the full committee, 
Ms. DeLauro, and I will follow Mr. Fortenberry, who will follow 
Ms. DeLauro.
    The Chair. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. And 
thank you for your testimony. My understanding, and I think it 
is something that the chairman asked about, that the FDA's 
process for conducting surveillance inspections rely on risk-
based models. I will just say that I have long been a skeptic 
of risk-based models for oversight and inspection, dating back 
to my time as chair of this subcommittee, when I opposed the 
plans to implement that practice at the Department of 
Agriculture.
    The central problem to risk-based inspection models is that 
the overall model is only as good as the data used to create 
that model. And I would note that Congress and the American 
public have limited information on FDA's risk-based inspection 
model for foreign drug facilities.
    A lack of transparency is very concerning to me. We don't 
know the proportion of inspections that take place relative to 
the overall number of registered foreign facilities. This makes 
it difficult to evaluate FDA's overall work in inspecting 
foreign drug facilities.
    Dr. Denigan-Macauley, what steps would you have the FDA 
take in order to increase transparency, not only of how they 
determine the basis to conduct risk-based inspection, but also, 
to shed more light on foreign inspections overall?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Thank you for the question. And you 
are absolutely right. The inputs that go into any model, 
whether it is a risk-based or one for surveillance on COVID-19, 
those inputs are absolutely vital, and the model is only as 
good as those inputs. And so, as I had mentioned, FDA does not 
have a good understanding of the denominator. They need to know 
how many plants need to be inspected.
    So without knowing what those manufacturing establishments 
are, that is absolutely critical. And in fairness to FDA, it is 
a challenge, because a lot of the manufacturing establishments 
want to register, even if they don't ship to the United States, 
because it looks an appearance of being approved by FDA. So 
they do have some challenges ahead of them related to that.
    But you are right. There is no reason that they cannot--
they can't share about how they go ahead and select those 
models.
    The Chair. What can we do, though, as to really an 
examination of this risk-based model, what can we do as a 
subcommittee, as a Congress, to really deal with turning this 
around so that we can get an accurate picture? What is 
necessary?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, as I mentioned, they need to 
make sure that they can get the bottom line. We need to know 
how many are subject to inspection. Then, they need to actually 
be able to go out and get those inspections done and fill those 
vacancies so those inspections can be completed. Also, we have, 
right now with this backlog, FDA has put the onus on itself to 
deem what is mandatory to do, and that mandatory means that 
they will go to those plants that have never been inspected or 
those plants that haven't been inspected in the last 5 years.
    And given the backlog, they may want to go back and 
reassess that, and that is part of our recommendation is how 
you are going to clear the backlog so that you can hit the 
riskiest plants.
    The Chair. Thank you. You said that they made some 
progress, but as I read the report, it would appear that nine 
times out of 10, and maybe that is, you know, a slight 
exaggeration, but they don't adhere to the recommendations. So, 
given that it appears it falls on deaf ears, so what should we, 
again, as the Congress, do to rectify this situation, ensure 
that oversight and safety of products--the safety of those 
products the public depends on? What kind of regulations? What 
kind of oversight? What should we be doing as the Congress and 
this subcommittee, to address that issue of not following the 
recommendations?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I think that sustained attention, 
like holding the hearing that you are doing, asking GAO to 
continue to do the work to see the progress that they have 
made, seeing what steps they are taking to get off the high 
risk to address the problems that we found, are all very 
critical. And, importantly, as you mentioned, doing unannounced 
inspections overseas.
    The Chair. High risk, do we need to challenge the FDA on 
this continuous, being on a high-risk list since 2009? What 
does that say is our responsibility to--go after the FDA? How 
can you be on a high-risk list since 2009 on drugs and drug 
inspections that are there to save the lives of the American 
people?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. FDA could be more transparent on the 
amount of appropriations that they need for the inspections, if 
necessary.
    The Chair. Well, my time has run out, so I will yield back, 
but it seems like we have serious, serious issues with the 
oversight and bringing the FDA to task on these issues.
    Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
ranking member.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    At this time let me recognize Mr. Fortenberry for his 
questions in the first round.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for 
calling this very important hearing, and I appreciated the 
comments of our Chair DeLauro as well.
    Dr. Denigan-Macauley, thank you for your appearance today. 
Let's start out with the simple question that I offered in my 
opening statements. Are our drugs safe?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So the FDA is well-regarded around 
the world, so I think Americans can take comfort in the fact 
that we do have one of the best systems in the world.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Would you give FDA's performance a grade?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. It is challenging because our work is 
ongoing because it has improved, it is certainly not the 
failing grade that we would have given it two decades ago.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Let me lean into that a little heavier. 
What grade do they get: A, B, C, D, or F? Obviously not F, what 
grade would you give them?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. The fact that inspections are going 
down and they have continued oversight problems overseas, I 
think, at best, we could say they are at a C, where they are 
maintaining their ability to have information overseas, but 
significant challenges remain.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So fair enough. I know you are 
probably low to categorize things that simply, but I think this 
kind of construct helps us understand where we are in order to 
get us to where we ought to be.
    Our Chair DeLauro leaned into this a little heavily, but I 
want to go back to it. What are the three things that the FDA 
needs to do to get an A grade? And let me follow up, or you may 
want to integrate into your answer, what you referred to 
earlier as alternative tools to augment inspections?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So, most importantly, they have got 
to figure out how to fill their vacancies. Even if you poured 
more money at them, I don't think that would solve the problem 
because they are having a challenge getting investigators to 
even do the work, number one. Also, as we have recommended, 
they need to look at these alternative tools and determine how 
they can either augment inspections or replace inspections, and 
if they need additional authorities, they need to let you know.
    Mr. Fortenberry. What are those additional tools? Define 
that, please?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So, for example, they can do testing 
at the border. They have also done document requests. They have 
relied on mutual recognition agreements, but they don't know 
the extent to all of these tools their ability to actually 
substitute for an inspection and if additional authorities are 
needed to----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Are we doing testing at the border----
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. We are.
    Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Currently?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. We are.
    Mr. Fortenberry. And now, as I had mentioned in our 
statement, Chairman Bishop initiated, and I was fully 
supportive of stopping drugs at the border, should we be 
concerned about the lack of inspections overseas. I want to 
simply highlight that.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So they are doing inspections at the 
border. Typically, though, because of the huge volume that is 
coming in, it is not very many. They simply don't have the 
capacity to test everything, and that really only tells you the 
quality of the drugs, but it gives you some information.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Has the FDA ever considered giving a grade 
to companies?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. It is interesting you raise that 
because, of course, on the slaughterhouse's side, they have 
discussed being able to do that and posting the bad actors. And 
I don't know the extent to which FDA has considered giving a 
grade to the bad actors on the drug side.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Would you recommend that?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, it certainly helps enforce 
compliance. We haven't done work, but we see that in the 
restaurant business. I mean it is right there when you walk in 
a restaurant, you can see. It is in daycares, whether they pass 
or fail.
    Mr. Fortenberry. What do you think about country-of-origin 
labeling?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So I have not done any recent work on 
country-of-origin labeling, so I really can't comment on that.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So let's go back to the previous 
question. If companies were given a grade, obviously, the 
public would have to have some access to that. How could you 
see that unfolding?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I am sorry. Could you repeat the 
question, again?
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. Again, the point of what you were 
saying, we post inspection notices at daycare and restaurants, 
the same thing applying to companies who--the point of the 
question is, obviously, to force companies to be much more 
vigilant in their--basically, they are attracting, or 
invitation, openness to the FDA inspections so that it is 
consistent with their assurance that they need to give the 
public and, therefore, their market that they are safe and 
efficacious. So how could those grades basically be posted?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, I mean, it is certainly a very 
valuable tool for the consumer. So, imagine if the consumer 
could look and see where all of their ingredients on their drug 
have come from. The problem is, even if you know where that 
finished drug came from, we don't have enough information 
knowing where all the different individual ingredients are 
coming from.
    So country-of-origin labeling for a drug would be extremely 
challenging to do, but, of course, if you have the ability and 
you have the political ability to do it, it would give the 
consumer better information.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I yield to myself for 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Denigan, let me ask you: Obviously, the FDA is vastly 
understaffed and under-resourced when it comes to foreign 
inspections versus domestic inspections. And while FDA 
publishes annual data on drug and device inspections, the 
report is limited, doesn't contain detail breakdowns assuring 
the number of inspections by centers, or by domestic versus 
foreign.
    Do you have any data on the number of foreign drug 
inspectors compared to domestic drug inspectors and the 
relative budgets of the two activities? And your previous GAO 
reports have noted the challenges that FDA has continued to 
have filling vacancies, and hiring additional staff to conduct 
that foreign inspection. The FDA released a strategic workforce 
development plan in 2016 to help recruit and train foreign 
office staff, but high vacancies haven't improved very much 
since 2016.
    Additionally, in June 2020, FDA testified that it intended 
to fill all investigative vacancies in 2020, but as of December 
2020, investigative vacancies remained. I recognize that 
foreign inspections present unique bureaucratic and procedural 
challenges, but it seems that hiring, training, and developing 
new investigators may not really be a priority at FDA.
    Do you believe that FDA is accurately assessing and 
prioritizing its foreign inspection needs?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So that is the basis of our ongoing 
work. We agree it is absolutely critical that they pay 
attention and have sustained attention and make it a priority. 
We will say that on our high-risk list, leadership commitment 
has been a priority. They have reorganized to better address 
the threat in how they can do the inspections overseas better. 
They have also developed strategic plans in the workforce 
planning, but something isn't quite working and that is what we 
are still trying to figure out, because there are still 
vacancies year after year. And they are not a foreign-service 
department. We want to find out what they are doing to help 
overcome these very challenging things that they are doing.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. In your testimony, you discuss some 
troubling reports, and we have seen news reports that FDA 
investigators have expressed concerns that FDA has downgraded 
some of the inspection reports from the most serious 
assessments being official action indicated to the less serious 
classification of voluntary action indicated.
    Is there any hard data on this, or any way to identify the 
instances where this has occurred, and how widespread is this 
feeling among investigators? I know we have heard from some 
whistleblowers, but do you have any hard data on this?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. So that is also part of our 
ongoing work. We definitely heard some of the concerns related 
to downgrades when we were in China and in India, and from 
other investigators. So we continue to look in this. We did 
report in 1998 that we found the FDA management frequently 
downgraded, and FDA themselves testified in June of last year 
that they have better aligned CETA and ORA reviews, the FDA 
process for reviewing the downgrades to help better align.
    So before they had a--I think that they are now, they said, 
at 73 percent agreement on the classification versus before it 
was only 50 percent agreement. So they are working on it and we 
are continuing to see how much of a problem it continues to be.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay. We provided, in the last bill, $3.5 
million, to increase short notice, unannounced inspections in 
China and India. What specific activities do you recommend that 
FDA focus on when implementing these funding, and will it 
require hiring more staff?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. So first of all, they have to 
fill the vacancies that they have, as we have mentioned, and it 
could require hiring more staff. Right now, all inspections, 
because of the pandemic, whether domestic or overseas, are 
doing full announcements, meaning that they give them the 
advanced notice.
    So, number one, we need to resume doing unannounced 
inspections here in the United States. We need to, if we are 
going to do it overseas, determine how that is going to be 
implemented, and FDA says that they need metrics as well to be 
able to do that. But, importantly, they also need to provide 
translators. Even if you have an unannounced inspection, and 
you are relying on that establishment for the translations, 
that is not acceptable.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. My time has now expired.
    I am pleased to recognize Mr. Valadao for any questions 
that he might have at this time.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for testifying 
today in front of the committee. Glad you were able to 
[inaudible]. The reason for this testimony, I thought it was 
concerning the FDA would supply foreign manufacturers with 
those heads-up before inspections. Notifications to 
manufacturers seem to defeat the purpose of the exercise which 
is to inspect the facility as is. To take a snapshot from the 
facility in a moment in time. The report finding [inaudible] 
For the safety of its staff and the manufacturer. One of the 
purposes of the preannouncement would be [inaudible] How the 
advance notification is related to the pandemic and how this 
action will help [inaudible] Proper inspections.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So--apologies. I had a little trouble 
hearing you. If you could repeat the question, again, just the 
question. I got the gist of what you were talking about.
    Mr. Valadao [audio malfunction]. I assume there's got to be 
a better reason for this [inaudible] Twelve weeks 
preannouncement of an inspection?
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Valadao, we are having great difficulty 
with your audio. I will ask the staff to consult with you and 
your staff from the technology, and we will reserve your time 
and come back to you when we can repair your audio. It is very 
difficult for all of us to hear, and we would love to hear your 
questions, because I know that they are very insightful.
    Mr. Pocan.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. And 
thanks for this hearing, and thank you very much, Dr. Denigan-
Macauley, for being here. Let me try to follow up on something 
our chairman had asked. He started talking about domestic 
versus foreign inspections, and do you have a better idea of 
numbers on that?
    Because, I was just looking at a stat, if I have got this 
right, 58 percent of the inspections were foreign facilities, 
but it sounds like there is a greater percent of facilities 
overseas than in the U.S. So does that mean that we are 
actually inspecting our domestic companies more than the 
foreign companies, which I think most people would want to make 
sure that they are also being inspected more aggressively?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Apologies. Trouble with the unmute 
button. So I don't have the data in front of me to know exactly 
how many of the manufacturing establishments are here versus 
overseas. We have about 4,200 total that we think, and, if I 
recall correctly--yeah. I don't want to go there. I don't know. 
But I will get that for you.
    But, importantly, before we were really only conducting the 
inspections here in the United States, and that is because the 
law required that they go to the U.S. manufacturers every 2 
years, and with the limited resources, it basically meant there 
were none left over to be able to go overseas.
    And so now, at least they are changing the way that they do 
their inspections and the model says, regardless of your 
foreign, or regardless of your domestic, if you have never been 
inspected or you haven't been inspected in the last 5 years, 
you are our top priority because we don't know what risks. You 
could be a no-risk. We just don't know. And then from there, 
they take that same pool, domestic or foreign, and they say, 
okay, now with whatever resources are left over, we will go 
ahead and inspect those. So the proportion of how they are 
doing it is much better today.
    Mr. Pocan. Got you. I really like Mr. Fortenberry's 
suggestion of the grading, quite honestly, because, I think, 
people would like to know that. I also am pretty amenable to a 
country of origin as well. I think that would help people, 
because, I think, often people are concerned, especially 
because of the last year, it has really been a spotlight on 
this. The New York Times article today, I think, was pretty 
damning, based on your report, and we appreciate the work that 
you have done on that.
    I don't understand the 12 weeks of advanced notice either. 
That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It sounds like you 
said they are going to be bringing back surprise inspections, 
but, you know, the 12 weeks seems to give people an enormous 
amount of time to fix errors rather than really get the input 
that we need.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. When we asked FDA about why they had 
to give the 12 weeks, and they said that logistically it is so 
challenging to travel overseas and we certainly understand 
those logistics, if any of you have tried to go to remote areas 
of India, it is very challenging, but we also would contend 
that you can use the State Department to help set that up so 
that you don't flag it for the actual company.
    Mr. Pocan. Especially since there is certain countries 
where a lot of this is done, you would think you would almost 
have an easy footprint already in place in order to inspect, so 
you would already have that system set up, especially as many 
years as the FDA should have been able to do this.
    In the article, one of the things that really stood out 
was, they said, that because of this backlog inspections, there 
could be surges of medicines. I know they explicitly talked 
about a drug, and I apologize I am not looking at the screen. I 
am trying to find it, a cancer treatment drug, what did you 
find along those lines?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So for our overseas inspections, we 
haven't looked specifically at what shortages they may have 
caused, but that is a concern. If they can't preapprove some of 
the drugs--for example, I think that is what The New York Times 
article was talking about or manufacturers have critical drugs 
such as the cancer-related chemotherapy drugs, then they are 
not going to be able to bring them to market in a timely 
matter. So shortages are a concern that we will continue to 
keep our eyes on.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, coming 
out of this, it is interesting, it seems to be some good 
bipartisan suggestions on what we can do to improve this. It 
sounds like for years they haven't been maybe having the best 
practices that have been kind of unexplainable, and I think, 
you know, perhaps if there is some efforts we can do in this 
year's appropriation process, I would be encouraged to work 
with others on both sides of the aisle. Again, I think the 
grading idea is one that, I think, is especially strong.
    So I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
    At this time, I would like to return to Mr. Valadao, if we 
can, to let him resume, if we have his technical issues 
resolved. Mr. Valadao, you are recognized----
    Mr. Valadao. Is it better now?
    Mr. Bishop [continuing]. For 4 minutes.
    Mr. Valadao. Can you hear me better now, or no?
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, we can.
    Mr. Valadao. Perfect. So the question was basically on the 
12-week preannouncement for inspections. Obviously, these 
facilities are manufacturing drugs that we desperately need, 
and the fact that we are giving a lot of these manufacturers a 
12-week preannouncement, I think allows them the opportunity to 
maybe hide some things that we probably should know about their 
manufacturing process.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. And what I would add to that is 
that FDA would say that they want to make sure that the 
establishment is going to be open, and that people are going to 
be there and that the documents are ready. But, again, that is 
not what we do here in the United States and so we would want 
that equivalency.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. And then in FDA's fiscal year 2021 
appropriation amount of $3.5 million was intended to be used 
for foreign, unannounced drug inspection pilots. As you 
reference in your testimony just last month, FDA officials 
informed you that they would be pronouncing all domestic and 
foreign inspections. Can you confirm whether or not FDA is 
using funds meant for unannounced inspections instead of 
preannounced inspections?
    Those sound like two very different things to me, and I am 
concerned about how they are using or potentially misusing 
these funds.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So that is part of our ongoing work. 
So I don't have a direct answer, other than to say that right 
now, they are not doing any--everything is preannounced because 
of the concern for the safety and they have not decided yet 
when they are going to go back. So I would anticipate that none 
of the funds are being used at this time.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. I am going to yield back the rest 
of my time right now, Mr. Chairman.
    I am yielding back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. The staff advised me who is next in 
the queue. I believe it is on the Democrat side. Okay. Mr. 
Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me 
okay? I appreciate that, and I am juggling another meeting, so 
I apologize for being distracted.
    Thank you, Director Denigan-Macauley. Appreciate your 
testimony today in joining us about this very important 
subject. Just--could you help those of us and people that may 
be listening understand how critical this issue is? For 
instance, not that I did, but say I had taken an ibuprofen this 
morning just to help with some of those aches and pains in the 
morning. Tell me where those pills likely came from, and have 
they been inspected? Do I have confidence that they are what 
they should be?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So I think--I am a consumer as well, 
and when I go and take a pill, I don't look to see where it is 
manufactured; I just assume it is going to be safe. Whether it 
is a generic or a brand name drug, I make the assumption that 
it is going to be safe. And so the FDA has very, very important 
responsibility to ensure the safety of those. I think that 
drugs, like food, most people would be surprised to know that 
very few can actually be inspected just because of the huge 
volume and in the increase of the globalization.
    So FDA really has taken on a risk-based approach to ensure 
that they are safe and thankfully, since Heparin, we haven't 
had a major where a plant hasn't been inspected, and then a 
drug got to the United States and killed people.
    Mr. Newhouse. Many of those over-the-counter medications do 
come from out of the country, right?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Good. So you talked about the process, 
and in your position from the GAO, making sure things are 
happening. One of the challenges, or several challenges, 
including travel, language, vacancies, are you seeing problems 
with recruitment for new inspectors?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So the FDA has been challenged, 
and has had vacancies really since the beginning they have done 
with the foreign offices, but what is important is that the 
pool of investigators come from the domestic base, and they 
have to have experience before they can then go overseas. And 
so even if they were to fill all of the vacancies today, it is 
going to be a couple of years before they are even ready to 
begin to consider doing the overseas inspections.
    Mr. Newhouse. So that leads me to another question then, is 
there any way to speed up that timeline, shorten that 2- to 3-
year, I guess, it is a training period, or whatever it is that 
they are doing? Are there recommendations that you can bring to 
FDA to not compromise or lessen the quality of the inspections, 
but to help speed up that process?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. So that is part of what our 
ongoing review is about. So, for example, just hypothetically, 
I mean, could you take someone who is newer but could speak 
Mandarin, for example, to go over to China and have virtual 
inspections--have someone else participate virtually from home 
so that that individualis, number one, not alone, and then has 
the microbiologist, or whatever the expertise is that they need 
there. So those are the kinds of things that we are looking at 
to see how creatively are they thinking.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Okay. Well, again, I appreciate very 
much your input here and it is an important topic. And we will 
continue to pay attention and listen to the results that you 
come up with. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 
holding this hearing.
    And I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady 
from Illinois, Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood, you are recognized for your questions.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
to Dr. Denigan-Macauley for being here. As of May 2020, nearly 
three quarters of facilities producing active pharmaceutical 
ingredients for the U.S. market were located outside of the 
United States. That means that every day, American lives depend 
on the ability of the FDA to carry out rigorous foreign drug 
inspections. Like so many Federal agencies, the FDA has been 
forced to alter its standard operating procedures over the 
course of the past year. For the foreign drug inspection 
program, this means almost all facility inspections have been 
suspended.
    In place of inspections of foreign manufacturers, FDA is 
using its other tools to inspect the safety of the U.S. drug 
supplies. Specifically, in a June 2020 testimony, FDA officials 
described tools such as denying entry of unsafe products into 
the U.S., physical examinations, or product sampling at our 
borders, reviewing a firm's previous compliance history using 
information sharing from foreign governments with whom FDA has 
existing agreements and requesting records in advance, or in 
lieu of on-site drug inspections.
    Dr. Denigan-Macauley, in your June 2020 testimony before 
the Senate Finance Committee, you stated that, quote, ``The 
lack of foreign inspections removes a critical source of 
information about the quality of drugs manufactured for U.S. 
market,'' end quote. Can you describe the elements of foreign 
inspections that are critical to ensuring the safety of our 
Nation's drug supply, but cannot be fulfilled through 
alternative tools, like the ones FDA officials describe in 
their testimony?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So part of the work that we have 
done, we have not only read all of the laws and regulations, 
but we have actually gone over and shadowed and talked to the 
FDA investigators to see what exactly it is they do.
    And it is a daunting job, and it is not something that can 
just be deemed from a document review. They walk in, for 
example, and you look at just the overall manufacturing plant. 
Do the employees wash their hands, for example, when they use 
the lavatory? Do they actually don the proper PPE? Are there--I 
remember looking specifically, if you see a mouse bait or a 
rattrap inside a manufacturing establishment, you are going to 
be worried. Why is that? Why is it if you can see, for example, 
bird poop and anything like that. Whether it is a food 
establishment, a drug establishment, they are supposed to be 
manufacturing, particularly for drugs, under good manufacturing 
quality.
    So they are there to check all of those things and not just 
look at the data, the temperature of the documents.
    Ms. Underwood. Yes, showing up and being there is 
important.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has unquestionably created new and 
anticipated challenges for the FDA's Foreign Drug Inspections 
Program, but many of the most serious challenges that Dr. 
Denigan-Macauley identified in her testimony predated the 
pandemic. For example, as of December 2019, the Food and Drug 
Administration had 190 investigators in the U.S. who conduct 
the majority of foreign inspections, but an additional 58 
positions were vacant.
    Dr. Denigan-Macauley testified that the FDA was in the 
process of filling 26 of those vacancies but also noted that it 
could take, quote, ``2 to 3 years before new staff are 
experienced enough to conduct foreign inspections,'' end quote.
    Of course, with postponed foreign and domestic surveillance 
facility inspections over the past year, new staff might have 
missed opportunities to gain necessary experience.
    Dr. Denigan-Macauley, can you provide an update on staffing 
shortages within the FDA's Foreign Drug Inspections program, 
including a description of how the COVID-19 pandemic might have 
exacerbated existing workforce challenges?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. And again, that is something 
that we continue to work on. We do have serious concerns that 
the pandemic will exacerbate any kind of fulfilling of those 
vacancies, particularly for those working in the foreign 
offices because at lot of individuals are now fearful of 
traveling and being stationed in India and China.
    So that is something that we are looking at. We do know 
that the vacancies continue, and we will certainly be reporting 
out on where they stand on that.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, I certainly look forward to continuing 
the critical work of our subcommittee to ensure that the 
Foreign Drug Inspections Program is delivering the results that 
the American people depend on.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witness.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
    At this time I am delighted to yield to the former chair of 
this subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Robert 
Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to 
be with the committee today virtually.
    And I just wanted to follow up on some--we had talked a 
little bit about the postponed inspections and the impact, and 
I want to focus a little bit more on the impact. In your 
testimony, as it has been mentioned, you state that FDA was 
unable to complete more than a thousand of its planned fiscal 
year 2020 inspections, a 60 percent increase in foreign 
inspections and will likely face a backlog for inspections in 
future years.
    My question is, could you generally tell us, regarding 
these postponed inspections, what that means for the real 
world, for companies with potential products when FDA isn't 
able to inspect their facilities?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. So it could have an impact on 
the pre-approvals for new drugs. Antimicrobial resistance is a 
concern. Being able to ensure that we have new drugs entering 
the market is absolutely critical. We have new drugs that are 
entering the market also for COVID and longer term down the 
road, so that would be important, as well as it has an impact 
on ensuring that the drugs already out there are safe, and we 
want to ensure they continue to be safe. So getting rid of the 
backlog is very critical.
    Mr. Aderholt. And could you talk a little bit more about 
what your understanding of FDA's plan is to address the 
backlog?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So they haven't given us--they agreed 
with our recommendation that they need to assess--in July they 
are going to assess how they are going to do the next round, 
next year's inspections. And so they agree that they would take 
a look at it, understand if any the alternative tools can be 
further expanded to help address that backlog, and also if they 
can increase their hiring, then that will also help to reduce 
the backlog as well. But as it stands right now, we remain very 
concerned that they are not going to have additional resources 
to be able to reduce that backlog. So perhaps they have to come 
up with a different way of looking at what they consider the 
most important ones to get done first to ensure the safety of 
our supply.
    Mr. Aderholt. And your testimony states that as of November 
2020, FDA officials told us that the agency had not experienced 
any significant affect on approval decisions due to the COVID-
19 inspection polls. Did GAO speak with industry 
representatives about the impact of FDA's inspection polls on 
these approval decisions?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So we did. We spoke with associations 
representing these manufacturers, and they said that while it 
is true that the impact may not be felt immediately because the 
inspections for pre-approvals are done several months prior, as 
the pandemic goes on, it is going to have more and more of an 
impact as we go forward.
    Mr. Aderholt. Did the industry representatives that GAO 
spoke with have the same view as the FDA did?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. They had the same view that GAO did, 
that there will be an impact as the pandemic goes along, if I 
am understanding correctly.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. And then the committee approved a $5 
million increase in fiscal year 2016 and then another $2.5 
million in fiscal year 2017 for high-risk inspections. Part of 
this increase went toward a process to discover the real 
inventory of companies manufacturing drugs and other products 
overseas, in particular in China and India. Firms are supposed 
to register with the FDA, but many are not, were not, and were 
not registering at all.
    Can you tell us about the FDA's current inventory of these 
companies and the basis of their surveillance and their 
inspection program? And has that improved at all?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So, fortunately, we have seen an 
improvement in what they call their baseline catalog of 
understanding which establishments, you know, should be 
registered and need to be inspected. They have used through a 
contracting process, they have been able to identify which 
companies are real. I mean, literally you need someone to 
either go knock on the door, so some of the foreign drug 
inspectors over in the foreign offices, for example, in China, 
they have been helping to validate whether or not a company is 
real or they can do it through a contracting company that has 
other technical, electronic ways of verifying the whereabouts. 
So it has gotten better.
    Mr. Aderholt. In your opinion, does additional funding need 
to be--should there be additional funding and, you know, just 
what are your thoughts, input on that would be?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I don't have further information at 
this time. It is something that we continue to look at on the 
catalog denominator and knowing if they have a sufficient----
    Mr. Aderholt. All right. I think my time is up, so thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    At this time I am happy to recognize the co-chair of the 
Steering and Policy Committee and the chair of the Foreign Ops 
Subcommittee of our Appropriation Committee, the gentlelady 
from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
this hearing, very important hearing to get this information 
out to the public; so many layers to unpeel with this.
    Dr. Denigan-Macauley, thank you so much for your testimony 
and for being here. I want to ask you about the impact of the 
backlogs on people living with HIV. You know, although the 
United States is expected to see an increase in the number of 
generic antiretroviral drugs, they continue to come off patent, 
and there are barriers right now in terms of access and their 
availability on the market. Only a small percentage of people 
living with are vulnerable to HIV are dependent on generic ARV 
drug products manufactured internationally. And so now with the 
growing robust generic competition, the percentage of generic 
ARV drug products manufactured internationally, that is really 
expected to grow in the coming months, but potentially not if 
the inspection bottlenecks delay the entry of these generic 
drugs.
    Biomedical interventions, including generic ARVs, are 
providing consumers with more options and really spurring 
competition in this overall process which may ultimately lead, 
may ultimately lead to the reducing of new HIV diagnoses in the 
U.S.
    So I just wanted to ask you about the potential impact of 
the inspection backlog on emerging generic drug markets for 
diseases that have historically required the use of high-
branded prescription drugs, including specifically the HIV 
treatment and prevention drugs.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. While I don't have information 
specific to HIV, what I can tell you is that the backlog would 
include for pre-approvals, for any kind of a new drug, whether 
it is a brand name drug or a generic, so the concern is very 
real. However, the one good news about pre-approvals is that 
for some circumstances, for example, FDA could determine that 
without an inspection that they would be able to approve that 
drug if, for example, there is a need, if they have had a good 
inspection history, another regulator has recently been there 
that FDA has a mutual recognition agreement with. So there are 
some cases, but for the vast majority, they would be in the 
same boat and would be part of the backlog.
    Ms. Lee. Let me just ask you on virtual inspections. This 
is very intriguing to me. How do we make sure that the virtual 
inspections are quality? And what processes are you 
establishing so that these virtual inspections don't really 
compromise the safety and efficacy of the drugs?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. Well, it is a good question 
because I think the first thing the FDA needs to do is to find 
what a virtual inspection is. At the moment there is not even 
an agreement. A virtual inspection right now could be defined 
as, well, I am reviewing records. And another company may say, 
well--another regulator may say a virtual inspection is 
actually using a camera and going in.
    So I would hope, and as our work continues, looking as FDA 
does their assessment on the other tools, you know, what are 
other regulators doing. They are not the only regulators in the 
world, and they can even think outside the box and not just 
look at drugs. You know, you have regulators regulating a lot 
of different things and how are they continuing to do their 
work in light of the pandemic with virtual inspections.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Thank you so much more this hearing, Mr. Chairman. It is so 
important.
    Thank you, Dr. Denigan-Macauley, for your responses.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
    At this time I am happy to recognize Dr. Andy Harris of 
Maryland.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and thank you for an 
important topic.
    Let me talk a little bit about China because China is one 
of the largest manufacturers of pharmaceuticals. And is it my 
impression, do you know, are most of the large pharmaceutical 
companies in China State-owned enterprises?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I don't know that.
    Mr. Harris. Okay. Well, I know Sinopharm is and I know a 
couple of others are, and that gives me a great deal of concern 
because, obviously, at least a couple of times in the past, 
there have been issues about the Chinese government issuing 
travel visas to our inspectors who want to go to China. And, 
obviously, a State-owned enterprise where the State controls 
travel visas, you know, makes this an obvious conflict of 
interest.
    Could you comment, what is the state right now? Because I 
have talked to an FDA inspector who is very concerned about our 
access in general to Chinese facilities. And, of course, it 
would start with the visa process. Is that an issue now about 
Chinese travel visas?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So we did look at this 
extensively when we were in China a few years ago on the food 
side. There was a lot of concern. First of all, all of the 
investigators used to have various offices throughout China, 
and not only were they unable to get the visas, but then they 
made all of the investigators move up to Beijing so they are 
centrally located.
    So there have been some concerns in China. I know that 
actually the President had to step in and help with that visa 
issue over in China. I believe that the situation has been 
resolved, but I have not taken a deeper dive to know where we 
stand on that today. But visas, I mean, it certainly is a way 
of controlling who is in and who is out.
    Mr. Harris. Now, beyond visas, my understanding is that we 
give more advance notice for foreign inspections than we do 
domestic inspections in general, and I understand sometimes it 
is getting people to the country, but that creates--to me that 
creates kind of a double standard. And as we try to move 
pharmaceutical production back into the United States, you 
know, that would seem to make it much easier to do production 
overseas. What is your impression? I mean, first of all, is 
that true in general, that the foreign inspections are 
announced further in advance? And if that is, how do we level 
the playing field as we go to bring some of that manufacturing 
back to the United States?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So absent pre-pandemic and now all of 
the inspections are preannounced, both at U.S. and overseas, 
for the safety. But pre-pandemic and hopefully going forward, 
the idea is to go back to more of a normal state and not 
preannounce in the United States.
    We have had long-standing concerns about the 
preannouncement. Giving 3 months' notice is just not 
acceptable, and it does exactly what you are saying. It makes 
them non-equivalent. So why would you want to move your 
manufacturing to the United States where it is more expensive, 
you have more environmental regulations, you have more 
scrutiny, more oversight here in the U.S. than you do overseas.
    Mr. Harris. So what is the potential solution to that? I 
mean, I don't know how we get around that. Or do we just admit 
that, well, you know, this is not going to be a level playing 
field and maybe the safety of drugs being imported from a 
country like China are just not going to be as safe?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, we can't control what the 
worker is paid overseas. That is for one. But what we can do is 
FDA is looking at what they call advance manufacturing, to be 
smarter about the way we manufacture, to have a shorter 
manufacturing process, which clearly would then reduce the 
total cost. It would reduce the environmental footprint, which 
would bring down EPA regulations.
    And so there are some things that FDA is looking at that we 
also have ongoing work, how can we stabilize our medical supply 
chain and how can part of that be bringing some of that 
manufacturing home.
    Mr. Harris. So you mentioned that during COVID that in some 
foreign countries we kind of depend on the local regulators in 
some areas. So my particular question in China is, did we 
depend upon Chinese regulators to provide some of the 
inspection? And, again, since these Chinese regulators are 
State regulators and these Chinese companies are State-owned 
enterprises, is that an issue when we look to deeming local 
regulation equivalent to an FDA regulation?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So the only regulators that can be 
deemed equivalent to the United States are 28 regulators in the 
European Union, and the only expansion that they have done of 
that is to allow them to not just do inspections in Europe, but 
then other countries. So if they happen to do an inspection in 
China that is approved European, during the pandemic, they are 
allowing that under certain circumstances.
    Mr. Harris. Okay. So we do not allow the Chinese State 
inspectors to substitute, great.
    Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dr. Harris.
    At this time I am happy to recognize the gentlelady from 
Minnesota, the chair of the Defense Subcommittee of 
Appropriations, Ms. Betty McCollum.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    There has been a lot of talk about 12-week review, 1-week 
review notice before an inspection. Having worked in the 
private sector at a large company, Sears Roebuck, we would have 
people come in, quote/unquote, from the tower from Chicago. I 
tell you, the more advance notice, the more we did to get 
ready.
    And so when anybody came in from the tower, or even our 
region, to look at the work that we were doing in the store, 
whether it was the restroom, the stockroom or the floor, it 
looked radically different than it did day to day. So any 
advance notice really changes the character of what goes on in 
any facility in one day. It included us dusting the top of 
refrigerators, something we never did unless we knew we had 
company coming.
    We have talked a lot about drugs and foreign inspections, 
but I want to ask you some other questions because you have 
been also asked about food. Cosmetic products made overseas are 
supposed to have the same regulatory standards of those made in 
the United States, and we could get into even how those are 
inspected here at home and the standards that we have.
    But the FDA has very limited resources in doing any of the 
cosmetic inspections. In fact, a letter from 2017 from the FDA 
to the Energy and Commerce Chair, Frank Pallone, states that 
2.9 million cosmetic products imported in fiscal year 2016, the 
most recent year we have data for, was under 1 percent. Under 1 
percent were physically inspected. Of those products that were 
physically inspected, 15 percent had adverse findings; so 1 
percent of the product, 15 percent had adverse findings.
    The FDA, as an organization, has released consumer warnings 
in the past, including for the dangers of mercury and skin-
lightening products, an issue that is of intense discussion 
right now in my district, especially for young women of color 
who have taken leadership on this issue. But many of those have 
purchased even over the internet. So ensuring that products 
come to the U.S. are made in State facilities and they are safe 
is becoming more difficult.
    And I just want to, for the committee, remind--we sometimes 
forget that the skin is the largest organ in our body, and 
everything that we put on our skin is absorbed into our system, 
and it can affect our health, not only from skin irritation, 
but from liver, from all kinds of neurological--I won't get 
into all of the problems it could cause because I will run out 
of time to get an answer; but it is really important that we 
address this.
    So as we are looking at inspections and more and more 
products now coming from China, can you enlighten us with any 
information you might have as to how cosmetics become involved, 
especially some of the skin-lightning creams and others that we 
know have had recalls and have had tremendous effects on 
people's health?
    Thank you.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Unfortunately, I don't have any 
recent work the GAO has done on cosmetics, but I do know that 
FDA, as you had mentioned, has an inspection program of the 
cosmetic manufacturers; but it is far fewer than we do for 
drugs, and they are mostly domestic. They are not looking at 
overseas. And cosmetics, I assume, would be increasingly 
global, just like the drug supply. So, for example, in 2019, 
they only conducted 73 domestic and two foreign.
    Ms. McCollum. Wow. Well, we will leave it at that.
    Mr. Chair, I know Ms. Meng and I have talked about this 
before, and I am sure there are others on the committee on both 
sides of the aisle who would like to work with us on this.
    But, Mr. Chair, with your leadership I would like to 
spotlight this and figure out how we can work together to make 
sure that products that we put on our largest organ, our skin, 
is safe for consumption, especially for the young women who are 
being marketed to.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And we certainly look forward to 
working with you collaboratively on that.
    At this time, still in our first round, I recognize the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and to the 
ranking member, both of you all, thank you so much for holding 
this meeting, and thank you again to our witness for being 
here.
    I want to follow up on whether we have enough people at the 
border to do the testing by FDA. I will give you one example of 
my hometown of Laredo. We handle 16,000 trailers a day, every 
single day. We also have about 20-something trains a day that 
come in, and we want to make sure that we have enough 
inspectors at the border and to make sure we have the right 
policy.
    Let me give you one example, hand sanitizers. And we know 
there has been a problem with hand sanitizers. The problem has 
been that FDA, as those hand sanitizers come in, the custom 
brokers--those are the people that handle the paperwork for the 
shipper and for the person that wants to buy it--they get down 
to the border, for example, and then they are told by FDA, ah, 
can't bring them in. So then the shipper doesn't want to deal 
with them. The person that was going to buy them doesn't want 
to deal with them. So the broker who is in the middle ends up 
with this product.
    And then you have local landfills that don't want to accept 
this flammable product for destruction, and then they have to 
send this, at the cost of a custom broker who had nothing to do 
with this, except he is the one who deals with the paperwork, 
that then has to go through, you know, sometimes, you know, 
millions of dollars for the destruction.
    So what these folks are asking is why can't FDA not allow 
the importers to just return the products back to the country 
it was manufactured so they can be destroyed there, instead of 
you letting the middle person, the custom broker, handle this 
cost because nobody wants it at that time.
    So we are trying to find processes to, one, make sure we 
have enough FDA inspectors and then, if there is an issue, that 
you don't burden the American business with the cost when it 
should be on them.
    So I don't know, Ms. Macauley, that is too much of a very 
specific question, but it happens in a place like Laredo where 
we are handling 16,000 trailers a day.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. The border issue is very 
complex, and GAO would be happy to work with you if you would 
like for us to do work in that particular area. I have visited 
your Laredo border, and, you know, hats off to the inspectors 
and working with CBP to be able to do what they do. It is quite 
challenging. So we would be happy to work with you.
    Mr. Cuellar. Yes, thank you, if we can do that.
    And the other thing, if you could also work with me, is 
somebody brought up the question about, I think it was 
Chairwoman Lee that talked about virtual inspections, because 
we know that there is an issue with language, and there are 
times where we have to depend on the company to translate. They 
will get some English-speaking person to translate, and then if 
you have to translate--interpret it. Then if you have to 
translate documents, that makes it more interesting when you 
are depending on the establishment to do that interpretation 
and translation.
    So what I am asking on the virtual, you know, there is 
telemedicine where doctors actually can look at x-rays and look 
at a lot of things to treat a patient. There has got to be 
technology out there on the virtual. And if you all can start 
looking at some things that we can use--I would rather have 
inspectors there. I would rather not have any problems with any 
visas. I would rather have the right translator there; but if 
doctors can do telemedicine, I am sure we can do some 
inspections, to an extent, on that.
    So I would like to follow up with you at a later time, and 
I appreciate it, especially the issue at the border because 
16,000 trailers a day is something we have got to handle pretty 
quickly on that.
    So appreciate it if we can follow up on that, and we really 
appreciate the good work that you all do and the men and women 
at the border that deal with this every single day.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Sure. Happy to.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
    For our last member in the first round, I would like to 
recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Meng.
    Ms. Meng, you are now recognized.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and thank you to Dr. 
Denigan-Macauley for being here today and for your important 
work.
    Two things: One, I did want to follow up and support the 
questions and concerns of Ms. McCollum on the importance of 
more and transparent cosmetic inspections and wanted to add to 
that products such as feminine hygiene products and food 
additives, chemicals, colorants in foods produced for the 
United States. We had report language last year asking the FDA 
to help establish good manufacturing practices for cosmetics, 
for example. So just wanted to reiterate what Ms. McCollum has 
discussed already.
    And then my other comment, question is also about 
recruiting. I wanted to know what efforts and how the FDA 
recruits its multilingual inspectors. I know we discussed 
already translation, translators and interpreters that are used 
oftentimes and provided for by the facility. But just in 
general, how is recruitment done? What are the top languages 
that are needed?
    And if there are maybe potential ways that we can work 
further with other agencies, you know, you mentioned the State 
Department in relation to travel for inspections, but are there 
any types of collaborations that we can make with other 
agencies even? And, you know, how can we just improve that 
recruiting process specifically for multilingual inspectors.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So the recruitment process is 
challenging for FDA because, in the pecking order basically, 
the State Department is going to have a precedence. And so 
there are language classes that they can take, but they are not 
going to have the first priority. There is security training 
that they need to take, but they don't get the first priority. 
And so I don't know the exact number of investigators that they 
would hire with the language ability.
    To be honest, we are looking at that. I am not sure that 
that would even be a requirement. That is not their priority. 
Their priority is ensuring that they have the ability to do the 
inspections that are necessary so they have to have those 
microbiology skill sets, for example.
    The other issue is that they can rely, for the few 
inspectors that are stationed at the China office, for example, 
and over in India, they do have local staff that can help them 
with some interpretation and language skills so that they are 
not having to rely on a translation app.
    I mean, we heard inspectors saying that, you know, the 
translator that the company brought wasn't very good, and I 
resorted to using my app on my phone. That is just 
unacceptable. It really is.
    The other thing is that FDA, if they don't have the 
resources or the ability to hire those with the language 
skills, there are other models that are out there. For example, 
the European regulators in China come up with a list and they 
say, okay, here is our list of inspectors--excuse me, 
translators that we approve. Company A, you can pick from this 
list and you pay for it.
    So there are models that we are going to look at to see how 
FDA is trying to think outside the box on this very critical 
issue.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you.
    Has the GAO ever conducted a study or will they on the 
FDA's workforce recruitment and retention?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yep. That is our ongoing work, 
absolutely. We have been looking at it basically this whole 
time, and they do have a workforce plan. But as I mentioned 
before, something is not working. They have a plan, they are 
trying to implement it, but they still have serious vacancies.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
    At this time we will start our second round, and I am happy 
to yield to my ranking member, my partner, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, again, thank you, Dr. Denigan-Macauley. This has been 
very insightful and informative. I do want to be brief because 
we are nearing the close of the hearing, but I want to just 
highlight a few takeaways thus far. You said that our 
inspection regime is the best in the world and, therefore, our 
consumers, the public, has a high level of confidence in 
American drug supply, and I think that is very important to 
point out. It is getting better, the FDA inspections, but there 
are significant deficiencies that give the inspection regime a 
C grade.
    We talked about implementing new ways to augment the 
inspection regime, such as virtual inspections. Well, then the 
question becomes, are drugs virtually safe? So I think we need 
to be very careful about such matters.
    We also have highlighted--and I think Dr. Harris did a very 
good job with this--that we have an uncompetitive playing 
field. When State-owned enterprises enter into partnership with 
American companies or other companies, that is a State-owned 
enterprise subsidized by the government. And, again, we have 
had lacks in environmental and labor standards around the world 
that have resulted in incentives for American and other 
foreign-based companies to enter into places in the world that 
is hard to inspect, and this is the reality of where we are.
    So, again, I want to highlight the importance of the 
possibility of a grade for companies and give one other 
comment. A long time ago I used to be on the city council where 
I lived, and we had a very good individual who was in charge of 
doing spot inspections on businesses for safety standards. And 
we spoke about rather than having a gotcha mentality, a 
collaborative mentality.
    The same applies to companies, though. Rather than those of 
us in government solely trying to ensure, as it is important, 
that companies are conducting safe and clean operations for the 
benefit of the public, which we must do, why wouldn't a company 
be so disposed, particularly if they were given a grade, to 
say, FDA, please come see us. We would like to voluntarily have 
you come in on a regularized basis or spot inspections whenever 
you like. And, in other words, shift the dynamic where that 
company gives consumers, gives the public, an added level of 
confidence that they are a cooperative player with inspection 
regime.
    Are you finding anything like that in the private sector?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I don't--it certainly makes sense to 
be able to have incentive, a carrot rather than a stick. I 
don't have----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Or both, or both, or both, as I said, 
both.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes, or both, absolutely. I mean, 
there is no reason that you can't have both, but I don't have 
specific examples for you.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I just wanted to raise this because 
if I am a CEO or a foreign entity watching this hearing, why 
wouldn't you have the disposition that I am going to guarantee, 
with the highest standard that is available, working with the 
United States Government, that my drugs are safe and effective, 
thereby giving me a competitive advantage? And this also 
implies a certain country of origin labeling or at least the 
grading concept that we discussed earlier.
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, and based on past work that we 
have done, I mean, it is clear that there are a few bad actors 
that can ruin it for everybody. And so there are some companies 
who are, like, please, come, I am not one of those bad actors. 
So I think it would be worth the discussion.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, I 
yield back. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    I just have a couple of other questions.
    The COVID-19 has created a number of challenges for the FDA 
Foreign Inspections Program, and the backlog of physical 
inspections is something that we have got to deal with for many 
years to catch up.
    The latest report from January recommends--and, of course, 
you indicate--one way for the FDA to supplement the regular 
inspection activities is to utilize alternative inspection 
tools. Can you walk us through FDA's reliance on those 
alternative tools, how they have utilized them in the past, 
what recommendations you make, along with regular, more 
frequent physical inspections, to incorporate them for the 
future work to eliminate the background.
    About 10 years ago Dr. Jerry Avorn, who was a professor at 
Harvard Medical School, suggested an alternative approach to 
ensuring the safety of imported drugs. According to an article 
in ``nature,'' he said that the agency should exert its 
authority over the companies importing pharmaceutical 
ingredients rather than on the various manufacturers. This 
would put the onus of inspections on importers, thereby 
decreasing the FDA's financial and administrative burden.
    While I have some doubts, it is an intriguing suggestion. 
Can you share your thoughts on that with us?
    Ms. Denigan-Macauley. It is an interesting suggestion, and 
we know on the food side that the FDA does have experience with 
putting the onus on the importer. So, for example, on the food 
side, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, they put third-
party certifications to help ensure the safety of it.
    The FDA now has the authority also to establish a Voluntary 
Qualified Importer Program which helps to ensure the safety of 
the food coming in. And like we have with drugs, FDA can refuse 
any imported food if it is denied at a facility.
    So putting that onus on the importer is certainly something 
that FDA has experience with, and it is an interesting question 
that you pose and something that FDA could certainly consider.
    Mr. Bishop. Not that I am suggesting it, but I was just 
wondering, this was something that was proposed 10 years ago, 
and I don't know whether or not it would be effective or not 
effective, but it is an alternative. Of course, the most 
obvious challenge would be for us to be able to do the physical 
inspections.
    With that, I am going to yield back.
    And I will recognize Mr. Valadao, who should be the final 
member in the queue.
    Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. I have got no more questions. I was just 
watching the rest of the hearing.
    Mr. Bishop. Is there any member who would like to ask any 
additional questions before we wrap up?
    If not, Dr. Denigan-Macauley, that you so much for your 
testimony and for spending time with us today. Along with what 
we have discussed, we will also forward additional questions 
for the record, and we appreciate your diligence in getting 
your responses to us as soon as you can possibly do so.
    Any more comments from you, Mr. Fortenberry?
    Mr. Fortenberry. Only, Mr. Chairman, to thank you for your 
probing and thoughtful questions here and for running this 
hearing so smoothly and to thank Dr. Denigan-Macauley. I think 
it was a very productive discussion.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your participation. And thank you 
to all of the members who attended, and we understand that 
there were a couple of members that couldn't attend. We know 
that they had some serious conflicts.
    But also let me take this opportunity to thank our staff 
who worked so hard to put this hearing together and I think did 
an outstanding job.
    With that, this subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                         Wednesday, March 24, 2021.

                           THE RURAL ECONOMY

                               WITNESSES

JEFFERY S. HALL, CHAIRMAN, FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION
GLEN R. SMITH, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
    Mr.  Bishop. This hearing is now called to order. As this 
hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few housekeeping 
matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition, for purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting yourselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, the staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When 
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and 
ranking member, then alternating between majority and minority 
members present at the time the hearing was called to order 
will be recognized in the order of seniority, and finally 
members not present at the time the hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff. 
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on at 
this time.
    Good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing. Today we are 
examining the state of the rural and farm economies through the 
lens of Farm Credit, to help us understand the challenges and 
opportunities our farmers in rural communities face.
    We are joined by Glen Smith, board chairman and CEO of the 
Farm Credit Administration; and Jeff Hall, chairman of the Farm 
Credit System Insurance Corporation.
    We are glad to have you back with us once again. I know we 
juggled the schedule a bit to have this hearing, and I 
appreciate your flexibility.
    Last year we held a budget hearing with the Farm Credit 
Administration before the entire landscape changed, due to 
COVID-19. Just weeks after that hearing, there were reports of 
farmers dumping thousands of gallons of milk and plowing under 
acres of produce. But even before the pandemic, the farm sector 
was facing many challenges, including trade uncertainties, 
large commodity supplies, weak prices, extreme weather, and 
high levels of debt and bankruptcy.
    In fact, in your testimony last year, you noted that 
Federal farm subsidy payments, crop insurance, and particularly 
market facilitation payments were the difference between a net 
operating loss and breaking even for many farm operators. That 
was, indeed, true last year.
    And, indeed, in addition to the MFP payments, which aided 
farmers directly impacted by retaliatory tariffs, USDA also 
provided assistance through the Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program for agricultural producers that were affected by the 
coronavirus pandemic.
    According to the Economic Research Service, direct 
government farm payments totaled $46 billion in 2020. Looking 
forward to this year, there will likely be a large drop in 
direct government payments, but you note that you expect gross 
farm income to remain the same and net farm income to decline 
only slightly.
    Finally, in all of this, I don't want to lose sight of 
young, beginning, and small farmers. 2019, the number of loans 
as well as the dollar volume of those loans going to these 
three groups increased. While this is hopeful, we know that the 
beginning farm households have less wealth, have more debt 
relative to their assets than established farms. Ensuring that 
our beginning and small farmers have access to resources is 
vital to the strength and the future of the farm and rural 
economies.
    Our farmers, ranchers, and producers are resilient, but the 
last several years have been quite challenging, and I am 
cautiously optimistic that this year will bring more stability. 
I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today, and I 
look forward to today's discussion.
    Now let me ask my distinguished ranking member and my 
partner as we collaborate the work of this committee, Mr. 
Fortenberry, if he would like to make any opening remarks.
    Mr. Fortenberry, you are recognized.
    Mr.  Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes, I would like to make a few remarks.
    First of all, let me thank you that you have called this 
important hearing on the state of the rural economy, which is, 
of course, a unique and vital and, frankly, often overlooked 
part of our Nation's overall economy and certainly well-being.
    I would like to also say good afternoon to Chairman Smith 
and Chairman Hall, welcome back.
    Mr. Chairman, you have heard me say this before, but in 
Nebraska our farmers and ranchers help feed the world. And we 
are pioneering the farm of the future, through wedding high-
tech with high-touch, connecting the farmer to the family, the 
rural to the urban, and the farm to the table.
    And I am pleased to join with ag producers in Nebraska and 
all across the country this week in celebrating National 
Agriculture Week.
    Our No. 1 industry here at home is agriculture, and we are 
ranked third overall as an ag State, generating $21 billion a 
year in ag-related revenue. And then that is more dollars and 
cents per capita from ag commodities than any other State.
    So farmer and rancher and agribusiness access to dependable 
credit is vital to my State and our Nation's committed 
agricultural success, especially after the recent supply 
chain's disruptions, such as the 2019 bomb cyclone event that 
we experienced here, and then, of course, this year the global 
pandemic which has caused so much suffering.
    Our regional banks extended critical financial resources to 
aid our farmers and ranchers during this last year. I heard 
from a number of sectors in my district just how important this 
credit was. The Farm Credit System allowed many farmers and 
communities to get back on their feet, and for that I am 
thankful. And as a result, net farming come last year was the 
highest that it has been since 2013.
    Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me just a few more 
moments, I would like to touch upon three major areas with our 
witnesses.
    First, I am eager to receive an update on the current state 
of the farm economy as well as any risk to the Farm Credit 
System. And as banking regulators, one of your fundamental 
duties is to determine if the System portfolio is diversified 
enough to avoid shocks that could ripple across other sectors.
    I see a common thread in the peaks and troughs of the past 
10 years. Export sales to China. Especially for fundamental 
crops such as soybeans and corn, China is our major export 
market and our fiercest competitor and our greatest adversary. 
I would like to know how big of a risk to our banking system 
and our rural communities is this one nation of China.
    Second, the average age of a farmer in America is 58 years 
old now. Our chairman, Chairman Bishop mentioned this, the 
Young, Beginning and Small Farmer and Rancher Program. Your 
testimony today will note Farm Credit's work with the USDA Farm 
Agency for young and beginning lenders to use better USDA 
resources.
    I appreciate these efforts to grow the ag family to include 
younger and more diverse participants, but I am hopeful that we 
can see even greater progress. What can your System do to 
ensure that we have a more sustainable Farm System, if you 
will, to ensure that we have the best ag economy in the world?
    And lastly, I need to point out that I am encouraged by the 
report of a major new investment in the rural broadband 
portfolio from nearly $2 billion to nearly $10 billion in 1 
year. You wisely note in your written testimony that broadband 
has become essential to the survival of rural communities.
    Here is a consideration, though. The chairman and I have 
thought aggressively about this. Wires laid do not 
automatically translate into a more vibrant, economically 
robust, and culturally connected rural community.
    We need to dig deeper to determine other important yields 
from these investments as they lend themselves to what I call 
creating an ecosystem of liveability: Telehealth, telework, 
precision agriculture, distance learning and a number of other 
metrics by which we would like to see outcomes.
    We also need to look at the fundamental definition of what 
rural means. Chairman Bishop and I were able to expand the 
ReConnect rural program to include communities that are rural 
in character, and I think this was important, so that slightly 
larger rural communities are not deprived of necessary capital.
    Finally, the Farm Credit System should continue to play a 
key role in ensuring that America has among the lowest per 
capita grocery prices in the world, again, another statistic 
that we tend to forget. And without farmers and ranchers' 
dependable access to abundant and affordable credit, we all 
will have less reliable access to abundant, affordable food. A 
healthy Farm Credit System is essential to a healthy America.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Smith, without objection, your entire written testimony 
will be included in the record, and I will now recognize you 
for a brief summary statement, and then we will proceed with 
questions from the members of the committee.
    Mr. Smith, welcome, and welcome also to your counterpart. 
We are delighted to have you with us once again. I now 
recognize Mr. Smith.
    Mr.  Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
subcommittee. I am Glen Smith, board chairman and CEO of the 
Farm Credit Administration. And with me virtually is my fellow 
board member, Jeffery Hall, who is chairman of the Farm Credit 
System Insurance Corporation.
    We will be reporting to you today on the rural and farm 
economies, the condition and performance of the Farm Credit 
System and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and I have a 
written statement to submit to the committee.
    FCA regulates the Farm Credit System, which provides 
approximately 45 percent of the Nation's agricultural credit 
needs. FCA also regulates Farmer Mac, which was created in 1988 
to provide a secondary market and liquidity to rural banks, 
insurance companies, and rural cooperatives.
    Now if we look back a year ago, we found ourselves facing a 
challenge, the pandemic. In my previous testimony before this 
committee in February, I warned to beware of black swan events. 
Little did I know we would be immersed in one of those events 
within months.
    From the time I became chairman in 2019, this board has 
strongly encouraged the System to be conservative in holding 
strong capital and adequate liquidity for unexpected events. 
This proved to be important during the early stages of the 
pandemic.
    And we are happy to report that the System institutions 
continued to meet the needs of agriculture and rural America. 
The System reported solid financial results for 2020, including 
strong loan growth, higher earnings, and generally sound loan 
quality.
    But I do believe FCA must remain fully engaged, alert, and 
ready to act. Credit stress is likely to continue in certain 
agricultural sectors in geographical areas. Effective changes 
in interest rates, trade, financial markets and general 
economic conditions are areas of concern.
    Fortunately, as I said before, the farm economy is in 
better shape today than it was a year ago, thanks to robust 
U.S. exports and strong crop prices since last fall and 
continuing low interest rates.
    And right now I would like to thank and acknowledge this 
committee and Congress for helping to sustain farmers this past 
year, particularly challenges earlier on in the year. Farm 
program payments and additional support from USDA helped those 
who encountered serious market disruptions.
    The farmers are now gearing up for spring planting season 
with a degree of optimism they haven't felt for years. Back in 
Iowa, my son will be planting our 39th crop of corn and 
soybeans. As a lifelong farmer, I truly know how quickly those 
markets can reverse.
    When the national emergency was declared almost a year ago, 
our first concern here at FCA was to keep our employees safe 
while continuing to fulfill our public mission. Thanks to 
earlier investment in communication technology and the talent 
of our IT staff, we were able to do just that.
    We also relied heavily on data analytics with our newly 
formed Data Analytics and Economic Office to make fact-based 
decisions impacted by COVID. And one of the first actions in 
response to the pandemic was to issue a message to the 
institutions we regulate, urging them to work with borrowers 
affected by the pandemic and notify them that we can provide 
some temporary regulatory relief.
    Since then, we have issued numerous guidance documents, 
including guidance on providing PPP loans to System borrowers. 
And I am very proud of how our agency did respond quickly. We 
will continue to focus on our mission and our critical 
projects, including improving credit availability for young, 
beginning, and small farmers.
    So, in conclusion, I believe that FCA fulfilled its role in 
2020 and the System performed well. The markets and investors 
continue to have confidence in System debt obligations, which 
ultimately benefit System borrowers by providing access to 
competitive financing.
    As a farmer, I am an optimist. I always try to find a 
silver lining and learn from past challenges. One thing COVID-
19 demonstrated to the American people and to us all is that 
agriculture and the food supply must not be taken for granted. 
It must be protected.
    FCA will do its part in helping ensure safe and sound 
credit for agriculture and rural America.
    Thank you. And now Jeff and I will be happy to answer your 
questions.
    [The statements of Mr. Smith and Mr. Hall follow:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I appreciate your 
testimony very much. And we will now proceed with questions.
    As I mentioned earlier, we will begin with the chair and 
ranking member, then alternating majority and minority with 
members present at the time the hearing started in order of 
seniority. After that, I will recognize members not present at 
the time the hearing was called to order. Each member will have 
5 minutes in each round, so please be mindful of your time.
    I will now yield to myself for my first round of questions.
    Mr. Smith, let me just ask you, as we have already noted, 
COVID-19 exacerbated the challenges facing the farmers. And 
despite these challenges, overall, farmers had a profitable 
year, largely due to Federal aid.
    According to ERS, direct government payments accounted for 
38 percent of the net income for farmers in 2020 and, of 
course, obviously, that level of assistance cannot be sustained 
forever.
    What are the major economic trends that you are watching or 
looking for in 2021 that you feel will impact the farm economy, 
and are there any warning signs that you are looking for?
    Mr.  Smith. I think from the start, Mr. Chairman, the 
Market Facilitation payments and CFAP payments was meant to be 
temporary, to get our farmers and ranchers through the 
difficult times presented by both trade challenges and then 
later the pandemic. And that resulted in getting farmers, as I 
said before, before the first half of 2020 in getting by.
    The groundwork for improved trade was laid, put in place 
about a year ago, and we are now reaping the benefits of many 
of those trade agreements, and our exports are up 
exponentially, a tremendous increase. For instance, the price 
of corn futures today a year ago was $3. Right now, we are 
hovering around $5.50. The price of soybeans a year ago was 
around 8 and a quarter. Today, it is about $4 higher than that, 
$6 higher than that.
    So we have seen some tremendous changes where the market 
has stepped in and replaced those government payments, which 
from the start was only intended to be temporary.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you. Let me ask you some questions about 
the payment modification and loan deferrals that we had last 
year--this year, I should say.
    You mentioned that most System institutions have the 
payment modification and loan deferrals that was specific to 
the pandemic. Can you characterize those actions, in terms of 
how many were granted and what length of the deferral, what 
length of time the deferral was for? Should borrowers be 
worried about an unexpected or an abrupt end to their 
deferrals?
    Mr.  Smith. Mr. Chairman, when we initially announced that 
we would offer, or it was suggested to System institutions to 
offer forbearance and offer terms to get our farmers and 
ranchers through these difficult times, the loan deferrals was 
one mechanism that was offered.
    Quite frankly, we thought we would see a lot higher 
participation in that. The numbers, actually, come back at this 
point only 4 percent of our total loans--this was $315.5 
billion last year--only 4 percent went to loan deferrals.
    Most of those were a year in duration, so we are just now 
finding out what difficulties there might be in continuing to 
service those loans.
    But with the markets continuing at the pace they are at 
right now, with interest rates continuing low, we have every 
reason to believe that most of those deferral rates will 
continue as successful loans.
    Mr.  Bishop. Good. Tell me, you just created the Office of 
Data Analytics and Economics. The idea was to move to a more 
objective, data-driven approach to policymaking. Can you please 
speak to the progress and early accomplishments of the office.
    Mr.  Smith. Well, thank you. And that stems from the 2018 
legislation, based on Federal agencies making evidence-based 
decisions. Early on, I guess about midsummer in 2019, we named 
a chief data officer. We created a data advisory board and also 
a data user group.
    And that office within our agency has become critical in 
making decisions, ranging from Young, Beginning and Small 
Farmer Programs, and improving the accuracy of reporting on 
those programs, to monitoring the closings and monitoring the 
pandemic in the areas of the country, in all areas of the 
country that we operate.
    So it has had wide-reaching benefits throughout the agency. 
We had a pretty active group prior to creating that office. I 
guess it was more or less legitimizing it. But by creating a 
separate Office of Data Analytics, we realized the importance 
of relying on data for making good fact-based decisions.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Smith. My time has expired. I 
will come back to that in a later round.
    We will now go to Mr. Fortenberry for his first round of 
questions.
    Mr. Fortenberry, you are recognized.
    Mr.  Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Again, I 
appreciate the testimony today.
    Let me ask my initial first question simply: Is the 
agricultural sector too dependent upon China?
    Mr.  Smith. Any time you are dependent on a single country 
like we are with China, we are at risk. And I go back to the 
late seventies, when we relied on the Soviet Union for some 
huge grain exports, wheat exports primarily, and that was 
abruptly ended because of global tensions.
    The short answer to your question is yes, we are at risk.
    Mr.  Fortenberry. So you used the word ``black swan event'' 
last year. Could you foresee this as a possible black swan 
event again? In other words, what would be the size of 
disruption in a scenario if there was some type of political 
fallout or economic disruption in this type of trade with 
China?
    Mr.  Smith. Well, I mentioned corn price a year ago was $3 
a bushel and is hovering around $5.50 today. And a lot of that 
in the corn market, because transportation came to almost a 
virtual halt due to the pandemic, it affected ethanol plants 
accordingly. And we have had some pretty impressive exports of 
corn to China just in the last week.
    But probably the soybean markets would be most profoundly 
affected. And, as I said, a year ago, 8 and a quarter on beans 
versus today about $6 higher, a pretty dramatic change. And we 
are at a vulnerable time right now, because South America is 
about 60 percent finished with their harvest, and we are 
starting to see that pipeline shift to South America.
    So we are very vulnerable when it comes to exports to 
China, and if that should be interrupted with some type of 
geopolitical tensions, a return to the bottom of that market is 
not out of question.
    Mr.  Fortenberry. Let me try to get a few other questions 
in. Thank you for that, I appreciate it.
    I mentioned in my testimony the average age of the farmer 
is 58. We talked about beginning farmers last year quite 
extensively. What progress, what achievements have you made 
over the past year to help young and beginning farmers?
    Mr.  Smith. Well, since I came on the board, and Jeff Hall 
and I have been very adamant about advancing the young, 
beginning, and small farmers within the Farm Credit System. We 
feel that, as the regulatory agency, we can promote and 
encourage institutions to go just beyond the reporting, but to 
see the program expand.
    I have done that, we have done that in three different 
ways, three different phases. The first phase was to get the 
data right, and I alluded earlier, talked about our data 
analytics group. We are on our second year of getting the data 
back on just who exactly falls into those young, beginning, and 
small farmer tranches, so we know where our baseline is. You 
have to start somewhere, and getting accurate data is part of 
that.
    The second phase is sharing of best practices, and you 
recall a year ago we talked about coming out to Nebraska, 
University of Nebraska Extension Service to their young and 
beginning farmers, of doing a conference with them.
    The pandemic put a big hold on that best practice sharing 
phase of our YBS program, our YBS initiative. The last session 
I was involved in was down in North Carolina. Farm Credit of 
the Carolinas had an excellent program, and I was part 
presenter on that program or keynote speaker to young, 
beginning, and small farmers. And they treat their farmers, 
young, beginning farmers very well down there. But that is an 
example of what we expected to do throughout the year.
    But there is one thing I am very proud of, and that was we 
reached out to USDA and, together with them and commercial and 
community bankers, we did organize a virtual conference last 
September to talk about how financial institutions like FCA and 
commercial banks could better collaborate with FSA on the 
guaranteed loan program.
    The first 2 years on the board, I think I had been in about 
20 different States. I saw a number of YBS operations. And 
there is one thing I noticed was that every one of them had a 
pretty close relationship with FSA, and I was interested in 
seeing that continue and leverage that further. It was a very 
successful conference. We are looking at----
    Mr.  Fortenberry. If I could interrupt you. I am sorry, my 
time is expired, so I better yield back to the chairman.
    We might want to come back to that question, because, 
obviously, we have socialized this both in law as well as in 
these hearings, and we need a trajectory, understanding the 
dynamic of the pandemic this year.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr.  Smith. Thank you.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry and Mr. Smith.
    We have been joined by the chair of the Appropriations 
Committee, Ms. DeLauro. I now recognize her for any remarks or 
for questions, at her pleasure.
    The  Chair. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member. If I can, I would just like to ask a couple of 
questions and I appreciate the time.
    This is one that has to do with climate change, because the 
climate scientists are saying that the length of the summer 
weather could increase to half of the calendar year by the end 
of the century if we don't take measures to combat global 
climate change. You know, hot summers are good, but may be 
devastating to America's farmers and ranchers.
    And then the Fourth National Climate Assessment--this is 
searching of Federal agencies--found out, with the current 
climate trajectory, agricultural productivity throughout the 
Midwest is likely to fall to the levels not seen since the 
1980s.
    The first question is, what is your assessment on the 
threats posed to American agriculture by accelerated climate 
change, and to what extent are Farm Credit banks incorporating 
climate risks into managing your loan portfolios?
    Mr.  Smith. Well, thank you for that question. I can tell 
you that, as a lifelong farmer and for many farmers out there, 
our concern for the environment, concern for the climate didn't 
just start here in the past year.
    I truly believe farmers are the original stewards of the 
land, and I believe they have an important role to play in the 
climate change conversation, particularly in the area of carbon 
sequestration. I believe that it does need to be voluntary. I 
believe that there needs to be incentives there, but I do 
believe that agriculture has a large role to play. I am----
    The  Chair. How is this going to translate into risk, 
managing your loan portfolio, though? Because I don't want to 
run out of time for this important question. To what extent are 
the banks incorporating these risks?
    Mr.  Smith. Well, I can tell you, Congresswoman, there 
isn't a year go by that we don't have some type of weather-
related calamity in some area of the country. And I am not a 
scientist. I can't, you know, tie that back to any changes 
except that I know that weather events put stress on the 
System.
    And our salvation there is that we are very diversified 
around the country, and in most cases we would be able to 
withstand that.
    The  Chair. But this is something that you would be 
thinking about dealing with, given the scale of the new reports 
in this area? Just whether or not you are going to take a look 
into this area in terms of--and I understand the 
diversification, which is great, but I think understanding 
these new reports should have some impact on how you look at 
managing your loan portfolio. So----
    Mr.  Smith. Yes. Oh, I absolutely agree that it does have 
an impact on our portfolio. And the other thing we need to look 
at--and we have had some preliminary conversations--we are very 
cognizant of the reputation we have with our investors in our 
bonds and our securities that finance the American farmer and 
rancher.
    And, you know, as a general rule, the investment community 
likes things that are climate-friendly. And so we are at the 
early stages of talking about that and what type of incentives, 
but I do think ag credit has a role, as agriculture should have 
a major role.
    The  Chair. Thank you. And my last question is, this is 
related to infrastructure, which is not your purview and, you 
know, coming forward with an infrastructure program, but 
infrastructure as it relates to American agriculture, from your 
perspective, how critical is upgrading our Nation's 
infrastructure to America's farmers and rural economies?
    Mr.  Smith. Rural areas are starved for capital, and 
whatever we can do to encourage investment in rural America and 
whatever the Farm Credit System can do to support rural 
America, this board definitely supports FCA supports. And we 
are actively involved in investment in rural America.
    CoBank, who has Title III lending to rural cooperatives, in 
telecommunications has a $9.7 billion presence. They also have 
a big presence in renewable fuels and renewable energy.
    So, through our similar entity lending, through our Title 
III lending to our cooperatives, to our rural cooperatives, we 
do have a vital role that we can play to rural America.
    The  Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired. 
And my hope is that what we do with regard to the 
infrastructure package will bring relief with regard to 
transportation to farmers, to ranchers, et cetera, about 
getting products to a market.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your time and my 
questions for the record. Thank you.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you very much Ms. DeLauro.
    At this time, I would be delighted to recognize Mr. 
Moolenaar from Michigan. Mr. Moolenaar, you are now recognized.
    Mr.  Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 
the testimony today of this hearing.
    And I just wanted to thank--the Farm Credit System has 
really been a great resource for agriculture in rural America 
over this past year, especially with respect to the reliable 
delivery of the Paycheck Protection Program.
    I know everybody was on the front lines, and I just can't 
thank the Farm Credit folks enough for the work they did to 
help eligible businesses and the marketplace as they were 
facing unprecedented shifts in demand, disruptions, and just 
the general uncertainty.
    And every American is grateful to the agricultural workers, 
from farmers and field laborers to truck drivers and food 
manufacturers, who worked so hard to bring food to market, and, 
as you noted in your testimony, the processors and 
manufacturers who worked through spot shortages and continued 
to make the food supply chain more resilient.
    I wondered if you could comment and elaborate on the role 
the Farm Credit System has in making the food supply chain more 
resilient. And also, as food systems evolve in the marketplace, 
do you believe existing regulations may be an impediment to the 
Farm Credit System serving the food and fiber marketplace?
    Mr.  Smith. Thank you for the recognition for our role in 
agriculture and particularly the PPP program, which probably a 
far majority of our institutions did participate in.
    I think part of the role that the Farm Credit System can 
play in the whole food processing chain is being able to lend 
to ag business and to be able to lend to rural co-ops. Many of 
those processes are cooperatives. And, of course, the Farm 
Credit System in itself is a cooperative.
    And the ability to lend to those links in that supply chain 
I think is a great help to facilitate the security of that food 
supply chain. You know, the irony, you know, back at the 
beginning months of the pandemic, I was here in D.C., and you 
would look at the meat shelves at the grocery store were empty. 
And yet, I had friends that feed hogs and cattle back in Iowa 
that had animals that was 10, 15 percent over their usual 
processing weight and couldn't get the cattle to market because 
of the shutdown of the plants.
    So certainly, from the standpoint of our role I think is to 
be able to have financing available to ag businesses in that 
supply chain, to make sure we have the adequate capacity to get 
it to the points of delivery, like those grocery store shelves 
that I saw in D.C.
    Mr.  Moolenaar. Thank you. I also noted in your testimony 
that one of the tools you mentioned that could benefit all of 
our rural communities is high-quality broadband services. And I 
couldn't agree more.
    And I was pleased to see that the System is an important 
source of credit for communication providers serving rural 
America. And you mentioned the $9.7 billion, an increase of $2 
billion from the end of 2019.
    I also just wanted to bring to your attention as well as to 
our committee members' attention--and Chairman Bishop has been 
a strong leader on this--there is some recent legislation, the 
BOOST Act, H.R. 1362, which is an approach that would offer a 
tax credit for individuals who could get a signal booster or a 
mobile hotspot. It is something that would kind of open access 
to people where fiber is still being laid and isn't quite there 
yet.
    And it is something that I am excited to be part of, and I 
think it is very complementary to the work that you are doing 
to expand access to rural broadband. So I want to thank you for 
that. And any further comments you have on that I would 
welcome.
    Mr.  Smith. Okay. Yeah. One thing that I guess we are 
interested in, some areas, isolated rural areas, broadband is 
difficult to justify economically, due to the high cost of 
distribution relative to the very sparse population.
    So any work that can be done with USDA guaranteed loans or 
grants would greatly facilitate our ability to service that 
area.
    Mr.  Moolenaar. Great. Thank you very much. And, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to the gentlelady 
from Illinois. Ms. Lauren Underwood, you are recognized.
    Ms.  Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you to our witnesses.
    In my district in northern Illinois, there are many 
communities that exist at the intersection of rural and 
suburban. And this can present challenges for farmers, but also 
great opportunities to participate in and strengthen our local 
food system. And while the coronavirus pandemic has strained 
many of these systems, as we rebuild our communities we have an 
opportunity to make investments in our local food system that 
will both improve the health of our communities and support 
small businesses, particularly our young, beginning, and small 
farmers.
    There are farmers and community leaders in my district 
actively working in this space who could benefit from hearing 
more from FCA's perspective on this issue.
    Mr. Smith, in your testimony last year, you noted that an 
important feature of good young, beginning, and small farmer 
programs was a high level of coordination between Farm Credit 
System institutions and local FSA officers. Can you give us a 
preview of your recommended best practices regarding 
coordination between FCS branches and FSA to support young, 
beginning, and small farmers?
    Mr.  Smith. Well, it seems like, in the coordination of FSA 
loan officers and commercial banks, community banks, as well as 
Farm Credit, we need to be able to leverage the resources of 
those FSA loan officers, often, inundated in a given county 
with requests and applications.
    And to be able to streamline that process would help 
greatly. And that is something that we talked about last 
September at our conference with USDA is how to streamline that 
guaranteed loan process.
    You mentioned small farmers, and you mentioned farm to 
market enterprises, for instance. And I would like to--a best 
practice, a specific best practice that is done in Farm Credit 
East, is called FarmStart program. And at our board meeting in 
March, we just expanded, doubled the funding for that program.
    But they are able to offer funds and a revolving fund to--
they are able to relax the standards and credit writing 
standards that they may even have for ordinarily YBS borrowers. 
Go to the extra mile, extra counselling for the young and 
beginning farmers, and take a risk.
    And we have challenged the institutions, if you are going 
to take a risk in investment, why not take a risk in your 
younger generations, in that young generation of YBS farmers? 
So that would be a specific example.
    Ms.  Underwood. Thank you. And I appreciate that. I also 
think that it needs to include coordination with local 
officials and community groups. Can you tell us more about that 
type of coordination and why it is so important to the FCS' 
mission to serve young, beginning, and small farmers?
    Mr.  Smith. Oh, I think there is a lot of YBS programs out 
there. In fact, the 2018 farm bill created a nationwide network 
among USDA, State directors and national director, and I think 
they work closely with State. For instance, Congressman 
Fortenberry mentioned the young and beginning program in 
Nebraska through the Extension Service through the university 
of Nebraska.
    Absolutely. Community and State resources can be 
coordinated. And in the travels that I have done, the 
institutions that do a successful job of outreach to those 
young, beginning, and small farmers look at a whole plethora of 
sources for outreach to young farmers.
    So certainly, it needs to be a concerted effort there.
    Ms.  Underwood. Yes and thank you. And in your written 
testimony, you stated that the farm economy is in better shape 
today than it was a year ago, particularly for corn and 
soybeans.
    However, we know that this has been a time of significant 
volatility in the farm economy for the past few years, caused, 
in part, by extreme weather, trade disruptions, and the 
pandemic. And, like most Americans, Illinois farmers are facing 
high healthcare costs and.
    In our final moment, I know that you are a Midwestern corn 
and soybean farmer. I represent a lot of corn and soybean 
farmers in my district, and I am interested in your perspective 
on the current market outlook for these products. And so could 
you share any upcoming challenges or opportunities that farmers 
in my district should be watching for?
    Mr.  Smith. Well, as I said, we have had a good outlook the 
last 6, 7 months, but that is following about 6 to 7 years of 
pretty mediocre outlook. So to say that we are in good times 
would be definitely an overstatement right now.
    Ms.  Underwood. But we are going to be all right? We are 
going to make it, working together, right, to deliver? I don't 
want to just leave it there.
    Mr.  Smith. Just leave it at that.
    Ms.  Underwood. Thank you so much for your testimony.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
    At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr.  Valadao. Thank you, Chairman. First off, thank you for 
hosting this hearing. This is an important topic that we are 
having today.
    One comment here. I hear from a lot of young and local 
farmers about an issue, that they have been trying to establish 
their farms. And I know Congresswoman Underwood and I think 
Fortenberry before I came on also brought this up. But the YBS 
program is important for young farmers who are trying to get 
started. And obviously, they don't have the money to purchase 
the land they are interested in or the ability to set up an 
office for all the tedious and burdensome administrative work 
required of them.
    And FCA's 2019 annual report notes that you are working 
with the USDA Farm Service Agency to find specific ways for 
agricultural lenders to better leverage USDA resources to YBS 
producers.
    This interests me, because it is crucial that we set future 
generation farmers up for success so that they may continue 
these important traditions and keep the industry going. We 
shouldn't be deterring these young people from wanting to 
pursue having their own farms because of too much bureaucratic 
red tape and lack of access to resources.
    Would you please expand upon what progress has been made 
since your meeting with USDA on this subject last fall?
    Mr.  Smith. Our meeting was in September, and at that time 
it was virtual. And our intention was to resume annual meetings 
around the country. And our hopes were getting high in October 
to do that and, unfortunately, that didn't work out, right?
    But I can tell you right now we are in conversations. In 
fact, I met with staff here last week, and we are planning a 
major YBS event here within, hopefully, by the end of the year-
first of next, and as well as outreach to institutions around 
the country.
    But virtual environment is we are getting by, but it is not 
100 percent effective, especially when you are trying to 
advance or introduce a new program.
    So I think we probably did the best we can, but am I happy 
or satisfied with where we are at? No, I am not. And we have 
got some catchup to do on it.
    Mr.  Valadao. So the issue that we struggle with here is in 
agriculture in general, consolidation is what happens across 
the board. Farmers continue to expand and grow, and smaller 
farms have a tougher and tougher time getting in.
    And some of the things I have heard from some of the local 
farmers--I even talked to three of them this morning before 
this hearing, to ask them how the process was. And they said 
they were just too small for the bank's time, and this was 
within Farm Credit System.
    And the regulations, the red tape, the amount of paperwork 
that was required, they said, look, we could barely afford to 
start farming, much less hire a full-time office personnel to 
be able to handle the paperwork required. It was just too much 
to ask of them. And luckily, they had a relative that was able 
to cosign for them, and they went and did business with another 
type of bank.
    But, I mean, that is not what this program is for. It is 
not for us to just walk past and look for other opportunities. 
Our goal is to try to help young farmers get into the business 
and have the opportunity to be part of a business they 
obviously love and want to be a part of. So, hopefully, we can 
continue this dialogue.
    The second line of questioning, talking to a few Farm 
Credit West folks, a question I got from them: With the growth 
in assets over the past year placing pressure on System 
institutions' capital ratios, how much more can System entities 
do without breaching your expected faith capital levels?
    Mr.  Smith. Well, right now, I believe our capital asset 
ratio is 16.4 percent, which is well above our minimums.
    For a little history, I would invite my fellow board 
member, Jeff Hall, to maybe comment on that, because he has 
been on the board for 6 years and he may be able to comment a 
little bit further on the trend. Jeff.
    Mr.  Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Capital is an issue 
that we have dealt with pretty often. And as chairman of the 
Insurance Corporation, it is vital that the System maintain 
adequate levels of capital to make sure that, you know, we are 
prepared for situations like we have just gone through.
    Most System institutions are well above the minimum 
required capital levels. And their boards can set their own 
capital levels and determine how much they want to lend.
    So I would say it has not been a problem, and we would want 
to make sure that we are adequately capitalized to make sure 
the System is safe and sound.
    Mr.  Valadao. So just to follow up on that, so does the 
System have access to all the capital held at the various 
entities that make up the System?
    Mr.  Hall. Well, I think what the reference is is there is 
a capital level held at the bank and also at the association 
level. And we feel that is important going forward that there 
is adequate capital at both levels, at the bank and at the 
association.
    Mr.  Valadao. Do you feel like you have access to all the 
capital that is held or not?
    Mr.  Hall. We do, and we think it is necessary, yes.
    Mr.  Valadao. All right. Perfect. Thank you. And I yield 
back.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the chairlady of 
the appropriations subcommittee of defense, the gentlelady from 
Minnesota, Ms. McCollum.
    Ms.  McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Over the past year, COVID has impacted all of our 
communities, urban, rural, suburban, but today we are going to 
focus on what is happening in our rural communities.
    This pandemic has exposed many long outlying challenges and 
inequities that our rural communities face. One of those 
inequities is the lack of access to rural Americans to good 
healthcare. Families have been forced to drive for hours to 
doctors appointments, which is unacceptable.
    I know firsthand, hearing from families and family members 
that live in rural areas, of seniors needing to go for dialysis 
in severe weather conditions in the Northern Plain States and 
in the Midwest, literally driving hours one way and back. And 
that was without fighting the global pandemic. Now we have that 
on top of it.
    In my State of Minnesota, we have come up with different 
ways since Statehood in 1858 of neighbors helping neighbors. 
And one of the things that we are very proud of in Minnesota is 
our public-private partnerships.
    And I am going to give an example here. Compeer Financial 
Farm Credit has sharing with local banks, credit unions, and 
the USDA in a public-private partnership to help finance 
critical-access hospitals and senior living facilities. These 
partnerships were happening prior to the pandemic.
    Given COVID's lasting impacts--and it will have lasting 
impacts all across the State of Minnesota, but it is going to 
have a different kind of lasting impact, especially in the 
rural parts of my State.
    I think we need to see more of these innovative 
partnerships that can not only strengthen the rural healthcare 
systems, but also help with long overdue infrastructure needs, 
like childcare, elder care, fire stations, libraries, food 
pantries and other essential community facilities.
    So currently, the FCTA's board of directors must provide 
specific individual approval for each community facility 
investment made by institutions like the one I just mentioned, 
Compeer Financial. It is expensive, it is lengthy, and it has 
the potential to slow down a process.
    With the post-pandemic recovery needed to happen as soon as 
possible for rural communities across our country, what can you 
do to enhance and expand the Farm Credit System's ability to 
increase these partnerships?
    So I heard you talk about, you know, loans to farmers and 
other things, but I also want to know what is going on with 
these types of partnerships and investments in rural America, 
where we have public and private coming together, sometimes 
with nonprofits helping as well.
    Mr.  Smith. Well, I couldn't agree with you more, 
Congresswoman, about the need for good healthcare facilities in 
rural areas. In fact, my wife worked almost her entire life in 
healthcare at her local hospital. And early on, as young, 
beginning, small farmers, that allowed us to pay our phone 
bill, okay? So it hits home, the importance of hospitals and 
not to lose our local hospitals and healthcare facilities.
    In your State I have visited some facilities that Farm 
Credit, the Farm Credit institution has partnered with not only 
USDA but also local banks in buying bonds in our mission-
related investment authority in hospitals. I visited a hospital 
in the State of Minnesota.
    I visited healthcare facilities and senior living 
facilities, all of which we have granted limited shelf approval 
to try to expedite the process with that particular 
institution, but there are other enterprises within the System 
that we approve on a case-by-case basis.
    So certainly we are doing it. We are looking at expanding 
on it. And I share your concern for the need for healthcare 
facilities.
    Ms. McCollum. Is there anything congressionally that we 
have put in that maybe the chair needs to look at with the 
authorizing committee to see how we tweak or fix something if 
something is a hindrance to making this move during the 
pandemic, especially with some of the help that towns and 
townships in our rural communities are going to have with the 
COVID package, where this might be a great opportunity for them 
to partner with others to do something?
    Is there something that we need to do? And you can get back 
to the chair with that, but we would certainly take a look at 
it. We want transparency, we want oversight, but we also want 
effectiveness.
    Mr. Smith. Well, absolutely, because at times we bump up 
against our authority, and if that could be expanded on by 
Congress, we would be all for it.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Smith. You are very welcome.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
    I would normally call on Mr. Newhouse at this time, but I 
understand he has stepped away, and so I am delighted to 
recognize Ms. Lee from California, the chair of the Foreign Ops 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bishop. Ms. Lee, you are now recognized.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of our 
witnesses and individuals who are here today to talk about 
this.
    And I come from, of course, an urban area--I got on late, 
so I apologize if these questions are redundant, but there is 
such a connection through the Farm Credit--excuse me. FarmStart 
is so effective in terms of making sure that we are building 
relationships between farmers and urban equitable food systems.
    And I am just wondering, in places, for example, in 
California--and I will hone in on my district in Oakland--is 
FCA tracking our young, beginning, small, and socially 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers from, for instance, the 
central valley from Mr. Valadao's district, to urban areas to 
ensure there is accurate understanding of the lending trends 
for these groups? Because it is such an effective program and 
we have such huge needs in urban areas for equitable food 
systems.
    And then, secondly, with regard to the GAO report on credit 
and outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, I 
think the rest of it is called agricultural needs and barriers 
to lending on tribal lands, well, it was determined and 
reported from this GAO study that socially disadvantaged 
farmers and ranchers receive a disproportionately small share 
of farm loans. And so wondering about some of these barriers 
that have caused this lack of access to resources and how you 
are beginning to address this based on the GAO recommendations.
    Mr. Smith. I will let my fellow board member answer the 
question on the Tribal question while I answer the question 
regarding diversity and reaching out to those socially 
disadvantaged groups.
    The Farm Credit System is in business to lend to all 
creditworthy borrowers, large or small, and oftentimes those 
urban startup enterprises are small enterprises.
    In 2014, FCA put out a directive to System institutions to 
develop and analyze a plan on the demographics of the area, 
including socially disadvantaged groups, how engaged they are 
in lending activities, and come up with a plan for outreach to 
those groups.
    This plan is regularly examined by our FCA examiners, and I 
believe really our emphasis on young, beginning, and small 
farmers, again, is kind of in part an answer to reach out to 
those socially disadvantaged groups as well, as I say, I 
mentioned FarmStart as an example; but the educational 
programs, the higher level of counseling, all of which are 
pertinent.
    And, Jeff, I will let you speak to the Tribal group 
particularly.
    Ms. Lee. Well, let me just ask you. Is FarmStart, where are 
you--what regions of the country are you engaged in? Are you 
engaged in the western region and in developing these 
partnerships with, in many respects, urban food deserts?
    Mr. Smith. No, ma'am. I mentioned FarmStart as an example 
of a program in some eastern seaboard States under Farm Credit 
East institution; but, no, it is not a universal program 
throughout the country. But I mention it as I say, in the YBS 
program, part of it is to share best practices. One institution 
may be doing something that another institution across the 
country says, That is a great idea, we should duplicate that. 
For heaven's sake, we are a cooperative, and cooperatives work 
together and share good practices and ideas, and I guess that 
is what we are trying to promulgate.
    Ms. Lee. Yeah, good. So let's duplicate it with the western 
region of mine.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Smith. Okay.
    Ms. Lee. The rest of my question, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. I will address Tribal lands specifically. There 
is lending going on in tribal lands, mostly for operating 
loans. There are some limitations when it comes to the ability 
to lend on property because of holding a clear title. Those 
things, I think, are going to be addressed by USDA and maybe 
looking at the possibility of setting up other types of 
organizations that would avoid that problem.
    And I will just in the last 10 seconds address the urban 
market issue. A lot of times we just focus on lending in those 
small operations, but the Farm Credit System does a great job 
in supporting local markets with grants and programs that help 
support urban markets.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And we will followup with you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee. And thank you, Mr. Smith 
and Mr. Hall.
    We have completed our first round of questions, and I am 
going to begin a second round.
    As you indicated earlier, as my other subcommittee members 
have indicated, there is a lot of talk about the need to tackle 
the aging infrastructure, and I want to build off the excellent 
questions that Mr. Moolenaar and Mr. Aderholt asked at last 
year's hearing on this subject and that Chair DeLauro asked in 
her questions today.
    Under almost any definition, the need in rural America is 
enormous for infrastructure improvement. With the pandemic, 
attention has been focused very much on healthcare facilities, 
the broadband needs in rural America. And you talk about what 
the FCA and the System have been able to do in these two spaces 
since last year. Are there any constraints on your ability to 
help with these kinds of projects?
    Mr. Smith. Well, Chairman, as I mentioned before, we are 
actively involved in infrastructure projects, primarily 
telecommunications, rural communications, which includes 
broadband, also electric energy co-ops, transmission, 
distribution of electricity, and electric co-ops and waste 
water facilities would be an example.
    But, yes, we do have some limitations in our authority on 
that. And, again, if Congress in their wisdom felt that we need 
to expand in other areas, we would.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Let me shift gears for a moment.
    As you know, farmers of color have faced historical 
discrimination and other barriers in accessing farm credit 
through commercial banks, USDA direct loan programs, and across 
the farm Fed System. But the extent of the issue is hard to 
really discern because regulations generally prohibit lenders 
from collecting data on the personal characteristics of 
applicants' loans.
    Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank requires financial institutions 
to compile, maintain, and submit to the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau certain data on applications for credit for 
women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses to facilitate 
enforcement of fair lending laws and to identify business and 
community development needs and opportunities for these groups.
    After significant delay, CFPB is working on a rulemaking to 
implement section 1071 as considerably size-based and/or 
activity-based exemptions. Is it your understanding that when 
section 1071 finally goes into effect that some of this 
demographic data would be collected for agricultural loans? And 
can you give us an idea of what types of loans across the Farm 
Credit System might be affected?
    Mr. Smith. I am vaguely familiar with 1071. I know right 
now we don't collect data specific to those groups, but if 
subsequent legislation required us to do so, we would.
    Jeff, do you have any comments on that?
    Mr. Bishop. You need to unmute, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Sorry, thought I did.
    I said we are waiting on CFPB's ruling, and then we would 
have our general counsel take a look at the application for 
Farm Credit System institutions. So we are definitely open to 
the idea, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. All right.
    Can you just tell me what you see Farm Credit's role is in 
helping producers adapt to the changing environment and making 
advances in conservation, sustainability, and other climate-
friendly practices? And could you tell us how much the System 
has in outstanding loans in renewable energy projects, 
including wind and solar?
    Mr. Smith. Yes. As I commented before, we do have a 
significant presence, in fact, CoBank, one of our largest 
lenders, is one of the largest participants in the renewable 
energy arena with $4.2 billion committed to this area and about 
$3 billion of that committed to wind and solar. About a half of 
1 percent of System lending is to ethanol plants.
    Back at the onset of the ethanol industry, that market 
share was considerably higher. A lot of these plants are being 
paid off or have been paid off; but I think you will see a 
System's role in updating the efficiency of these plants as we 
develop new technology and as ethanol production becomes 
higher.
    So certainly continued participation in that arena is 
important for the climate change conversations that are going 
on today.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
    My time has just about expired, so I am delighted to yield 
for a second round to my colleague, my partner, Mr. 
Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Underwood had a smile when she ended her testimony when 
she said, ``Is everything going to be all right?'' There was a 
Congressman from northeast Nebraska in the thirties in the 
midst of the Depression, right before World War II, who used to 
go on the radio every week, and he would start out by saying, 
``I am here to tell you everything is going to be all right.''
    Is that right, Chairman Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Well, sure.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Fair answer.
    I want to ask about a couple of things. You heard a lot of 
today's hearing focused on young and beginning and small 
farmers. So I think it would be a good idea, all things 
considered with the pandemic this year and the disruptions that 
occurred, to lay down specific plans, the trajectory for next 
year that would pick up on, again, socializing this 
conceptually, informing the broader community as to what credit 
and grant possibilities are available, similarly to what you 
were planning in terms of the workshop in D.C.
    Secondly, let's do it in the middle of the country. Let's 
do it right here. You are my neighbor. Come across the river. 
We will get you a visa and you are welcome.
    So, again, I am going to be presumptuous and extend the 
courtesy of an invitation from the University of Nebraska, but 
we have the entrepreneurial center here who works aggressively 
with young farmers and small businesses, small ag businesses 
doing incredible things. So I would like to try to--let's be 
real specific and start planning that because I do think, as 
you heard the sentiment of the committee, digging deeper into 
this and moving quicker as to how we expand the ag family, 
consistent with the law and the additional funding we have 
provided in the law year after year for about the last decade 
or so, I think is very, very important. So if we could do that, 
that would be great.
    Secondly, let me turn to the broadband question. Again, in 
the pandemic we have seen this digital leap. Now, you have made 
approximately $10 billion of loans, a 25 percent increase in 
just this year, for rural broadband; but let's talk about what 
that means.
    Is that just based upon the soundness of the loan, 
obviously, the financial flow back from that capital 
investment, or do you consider other impacts, the broader 
social impacts, which, obviously, justify the public 
expenditure here, of the aggressive pursuit of broadband in 
rural communities?
    And I talked about those earlier; advancements in 
telehealth, distance education, telework, precision 
agriculture, e-commerce, and small business.
    Mr. Smith. Well, Congressman, our mission is safety and 
soundness. And, obviously, it has got to be financially 
feasible for us to consider a loan, and that is why I suggested 
any collaboration with USDA in the way of guarantees or grants 
would help consideration of those loans; but we can't be making 
loans that aren't financially feasible due to our mission. That 
would jeopardize our ability to serve the American farmers for 
the typical needs that Farm Credit does as far as operating 
funds for your operation and farmer or State loans.
    So I hope I am answering your question, can we invest in 
something that is risky due to the social underpinnings and 
social direction? Probably not, but we are going to need some 
reassurance and help from other agencies to do so.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah well, we have got a lot of public 
expenditures going in this direction anyway, about $2 billion 
worth. And it was a bit surprising to the chairman and I in our 
last hearing, we asked the Inspector General, ``What are the 
metrics for success of that public expenditure?'' and she 
didn't know. So that is one area of public policy that we can 
improve on.
    But, again, because you are an indirect support by a public 
benefit, these are important metrics. And, of course, you are 
correct, your first consideration obviously is financial 
viability of the market, the loan.
    But there are broader social impact metrics here that 
actually I think would be completely consistent with long-term 
financial viability, given the fact that we have reached a 
tipping point in the aggressive, pervasive use of broadband now 
for these broader purposes is here. I mean, this represents a 
big market opportunity.
    So I recognize what you are saying, but recognize what I am 
saying as well, that these are essential metrics that I think 
are, frankly, going to be good for business, and we are 
spending lots of public money already in this space.
    Mr. Smith. Yes. No, I couldn't agree more, Congressman.
    Mr. Fortenberry. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    At this time I am delighted to yield a second round to Mrs. 
McCollum.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    I wanted to address the climate change issue that Ms. 
DeLauro brought up earlier. From the reading that I have done 
and some of the outlooks, if we don't get our climate under 
control pretty quick with the heat levels rising, we will see 
agriculture facing some real dire consequences.
    So I understood your answer to Ms. DeLauro that you look at 
a case-by-case, year-by-year of what you think the weather 
forecast is going to be, but insurance companies are doing the 
same thing and raising rates. So what are you going to do to 
help farmers either work with the USDA about, you know, 
shifting crops over to things that need less water, rot-
resistant, different types of irrigation that they might want 
to put in that is more effective or more efficient? What are 
you doing?
    Because we are seeing this with the timber in northern 
Minnesota. We have our farms too. But, you know, if you look at 
the climate signs, they are pretty clear about what is going to 
happen to farming all across the world, including here in the 
United States.
    So what are you doing to not only prepare yourself for that 
but to help farmers prepare for that so that we don't lose our 
agriculture base, which is so important in Minnesota and other 
parts of the United States? We not only feed ourselves, but we 
feed the world.
    Mr. Smith. Well, I think we--number one, I think--as a 
farmer and speaking for farmers as a group, I think we are 
doing a lot of stewardship, conservation practices that are 
beneficial to the environment and offer a possible solution to 
climate change.
    Historically, farmers have been involved in conservation 
issues due to water quality; but the carbon sequestration--and 
Secretary Vilsack has been talking about this on a very regular 
basis. Carbon sequestration we believe scientifically will 
prove as a way that farmers can mitigate climate change, but 
they have to be incentivized to be able to do it.
    So the incentives, what we can do as lenders, we are at the 
very early stages. The whole discussion is at the early stages, 
and I don't know quite what our role is, Congresswoman, except 
that I know that I have been discussing it within staff. We 
will continue the discussion to see what our role is. But as 
far as any directive from Farm Credit Administration or 
financial incentives, I think probably you are looking to USDA 
for that.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, Mr. Chair, thank you for that because I 
know it is a difficult question to answer, but it can't just 
all fall on the farmers. The decisions that we make to 
incentivize or disincentivize different kinds of energy use, 
building codes, things that we do in Congress all the time, can 
have the effect of choosing winners or losers with climate 
change and not doing it intentionally, not understanding what 
is going on. And I really think that we need to have the 
agriculture sector at the table talking about what this will 
mean to them, their businesses, their economies, their 
livelihoods, their communities, and this needs to be a whole-
of-government approach. I am working on it in the Defense 
Committee right now.
    And so this doesn't need to--I am not--I don't want to 
state that it should fall on your shoulders. I know Land 
O'Lakes is having these discussions. General Mills is having 
these discussions. And it is not just about what we do in the 
ag sector. It needs to be what we do whole of government.
    So I appreciate your answer, and it doesn't surprise me 
that you are thinking about what farmers can do because they 
are good stewards of the land.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Hall. Ms. McCollum, could I add a point to that?
    Ms. McCollum. That is up to the chair.
    Mr. Bishop. Go right ahead, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think it ties back to the conversation we have been 
having. It is technology, infrastructure. Improved technology 
and the ability to increase broadband is going to give us not 
only answers but solutions to climate change issues.
    So I think those two are very well tied closely together.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to 
excuse myself.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you Ms. McCollum. And thank you Mr. Hall.
    At this time I am delighted to recognize Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 
flexibility. I had to jump off for a quick meeting and came 
right back.
    Mr. Smith, thank you for joining us. As a fellow farmer, I 
am appreciative of seeing you in your position. You understand 
the challenges in ag country, and that gives me a lot of 
confidence moving forward. So thank you for all the work you 
are doing. And welcome to you, Mr. Hall, as well.
    I don't have to tell you, but just want to mention, you 
know, that certainly last year we had a lot of ups and downs in 
agriculture, certainly growers in the State of Washington, as 
throughout the country, experienced. We saw bottlenecks with 
our food supply chains that truly created kind of a domino 
effect through the supply chains causing real uncertainty 
throughout the growing season and impacting the 2020 harvest.
    Fortunately, Congress, as well as the administration 
through Secretary Perdue, created the CFAP Program, the Farmers 
to Families, I think it was called, Food Box Program and many 
other things to help those who truly needed help and also to 
allow our growers to continue producing that high quality food 
and fiber that we all depend on.
    Growers in the State of Washington faced one of the really 
most uncertain growing and marketing seasons, certainly more 
than any in my lifetime that I can remember.
    One concern, though, through 2020 was the availability of 
capital, obviously. Around this time most growers had completed 
their operating budgets. They got, you know, paperwork 
submitted to their lenders and all that stuff, and then with 
new protocols in place, many growers found some adjustments 
were needed to protect their workforce, particularly, 
especially crop growers that had to figure out how to cover 
PPE, handwashing, retrofitting for processing, all of those 
kinds of things.
    And then on top of that, additional things had to be done 
for H-2A housing, if you needed larger crews and how do you 
fit--you just had to have additional places to put people, 
especially if somebody got sick.
    And I truly hope that is not what we have to face this 
year, but with that possibility, a potential for surges with 
the pandemic, flexibilities and loan adjustments will be very 
helpful for people.
    I just wanted to know if FCA is remaining cognizant of some 
of these dynamics with COVID and will you have flexibilities 
built in as we hopefully move towards emerging from the 
pandemic?
    And then, I just wanted to underscore as well, broadband 
has been mentioned by several members, and I appreciate the 
focus on that. I just wanted to chime in there as well. That is 
a huge, huge part of bringing the rural communities up to par 
with our urban cousins. And I appreciate your thoughts, but if 
you have anything else that you would like to add to some of 
the things that you have planned on, I, obviously, would be 
interested in that as well.
    So with those two questions, I would let you respond. And 
thank you very much for being here.
    Mr.  Smith. Yes. Well, thank you, Congressman, and I have 
visited your fine State, and the one thing that I was very 
impressed on is the diversification, huge diversification. I 
said I came from corn, soybean, hog, and cattle country and 
didn't know a lot about vineyards or almonds or apples or all 
of the enterprises that is represented in your State. And I 
mentioned in my opening comment, and meant it, is that we do 
have to be vigilant to areas of need throughout the country.
    Some of those niche smaller enterprises that don't get the 
attention that maybe the areas like dairy and corn and soybeans 
is still a vital part of agriculture, and certainly in your 
State we need to be cognizant all of those measures that we 
take for producers and growers under stress, encourage our 
local institutions and encourage our local associations to work 
with those borrowers under stress.
    And I know your State is very reliant on exports, 
particularly to the Asian market and----
    Mr.  Newhouse. Right. Yes.
    Mr.  Smith [continuing]. So that could be very vulnerable 
right now. We happened to visit a couple of vineyards in 
Washington. I was amazed at the amount of vineyards in the 
State of Washington, but I know that industry right now is 
impacted by a large supply, some inability to move product 
overseas and some climate issues as well.
    So, absolutely, we have to be cognizant of those local, 
regional problems; but, again, I will come back, that is the 
strength of the Farm Credit System, is we are able to average 
that with everything that is going on around the country. While 
one region might be doing well, another region of the country 
may not be doing as well.
    So that is something--although we are a single industry 
entity, and that single industry being agriculture, the 
tremendous geographic and enterprise diversification adds to 
our strength. And certainly there is no more diversification 
than in the State of Washington.
    Mr.  Newhouse. I appreciate that. Most everything we raise 
is considered a minor crop and doesn't fall under the category 
of the corn and soybeans. So I thank you for recognizing that.
    And let me just say too--I know my time is up, Mr. 
Chairman, but I wanted to underscore what you said. It is 
something very similar to what I have been saying for years is 
that farmers truly are the original stewards of the land. We 
depend on clean water, our land quality, the air as well, for 
our livelihoods. And so I always say we are the original 
conservationists, but stewards is a good name as well. It means 
the same thing.
    So thank you for that, and I appreciate your hard work, and 
thank you for being with us today.
    And, Mr. Bishop, with that, I yield back. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for a second round.
    Mr.  Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Sorry, I was logging out of my other one, my other 
committee right now.
    Mr. Smith, I understand commodities and trade are among 
some of the economic conditions that affect the Farm Credit 
System. As you are likely aware, there is an alarming issue 
going on in the international trade space. Shipping carriers 
are traveling back to Southeast Asia from the United States 
with completely empty shipping containers, leaving our 
agriculture exports behind, abandoning standing agreements with 
our producers.
    How do dangerous situations like this impact the Farm 
Credit System and what kind of ripple effect could this have on 
the agriculture industry and economy?
    Mr.  Smith. Well, if our producers can't get our products 
to market, obviously, it is a huge detriment to that borrower 
and to that particular region. I confess, I haven't read too 
much and have not heard too much of the magnitude of that 
problem.
    Board Member Hall, does that ring a bell with you at all?
    Mr.  Valadao. The real purpose of me asking the question 
isn't specific to get an answer from you because I understand 
that probably is not exactly where your strengths should be.
    But you had mentioned in some of your comments earlier and 
even during some of the earlier questions that corn prices were 
up $5.50 a bushel and just previously had been at $3 a bushel. 
There is many of the members on this committee where that 
sounds like a great thing; but, obviously, that is a huge 
impact on the cost of some of the guys in my district. And some 
of the areas where we have to make up that difference is export 
markets and other types of markets and making sure that the 
bank is in a position to help in these types of situations, at 
least to understand why farmers are struggling at a certain 
time.
    I would appreciate if the System would take these things 
into account as the industry moves forward and understanding 
the impacts of one on the other. I mean, agriculture all has to 
work together.
    I am, obviously, very close to the dairy industry. We use a 
ton of byproducts from other industries around me. My district 
grows somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 400 different types 
of commodities. And even just spending some time yesterday with 
a farmer on the west side of the valley here, I was describing 
a crop that I had driven by and I didn't know what it was and 
he didn't know what it was, and it is a pretty amazing 
situation where we grow that many different types.
    But understanding we are in a position where we have got to 
be good advocates for our farmers and making sure that the 
banking industry, especially the Federal Farm Credit System, is 
there during these tough times. And I expect there to be some 
tough times this upcoming year. I think that issue that has 
gone on with the ports leaving is going to create a backlog 
that is going to have a long-term impact on our markets and 
also the prices of some of the commodities going up in certain 
parts are going to have a detrimental impact on others.
    It wasn't really a question, more of a statement, but hope 
that you take those things into account as we move forward and 
as these markets play out.
    Mr.  Smith. Well, that is a very good point, Congressman, 
that one area that might be doing well, for instance, corn 
prices is not necessarily good for the livestock feeding 
industry, for cattle producers, or dairy, and right now margins 
are narrowing in those industries around the country. So, yeah, 
not everybody is cheering.
    Mr.  Valadao. Yeah. Well, we want our neighbors and our 
fellow ag folks to do well. We just want to make sure we can 
survive to continue to be part of the community as well.
    Mr.  Smith. Yes, very much so.
    Mr.  Valadao. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    I have exhausted all of my questions.
    I would like to ask if any member has another round. Mr. 
Newhouse, I know you had to step off, and if you would like to 
have a second round, I will yield to you. If not, I will 
prepare to close out.
    Mr.  Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I have no 
further questions.
    Mr.  Bishop. Very well. I am glad you were able to rejoin 
us.
    Mr. Smith and Mr. Hall, thank you both for being here 
today. 2020 was a very unprecedented year for our farming 
community, and many challenges will continue to linger. I 
appreciate your testimony and your assessment of the year 
ahead, and I look forward to working with you to meet these 
challenges, particularly the ones discussed today.
    Along with what we have discussed, we also will forward to 
you some additional questions for the record, and we would 
appreciate your diligence in getting your responses to us as 
quickly as you can.
    Mr. Fortenberry, would you like to make any closing 
remarks?
    Mr.  Fortenberry. No, Mr. Chairman. I am finished; just to 
thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Hall for their testimony 
today, and I think we have got a start to a good plan next 
year, particularly for young farmers and ranchers and small 
farmers as well.
    So thank you for holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr.  Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. And thank you to 
all of the members in attendance. Thank you again to Mr. Smith 
and to Mr. Hall and to our staff who worked so hard to put this 
hearing together and helped it to run what I think was very 
smoothly.
    With that, the subcommittee is now adjourned.
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                         Wednesday, April 14, 2021.

           THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--THE YEAR AHEAD

                               WITNESSES

HON. THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    Mr. Bishop. This hearing is now called to order.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, then the staff will unmute your 
microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved and you will retain 
the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When 
your time has expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin 
to recognize the next member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set 
forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking 
member, then alternating between majority and minority members 
that are present at the time the hearing is called to order. 
Members will be recognized in order of seniority. And finally, 
members not present at the time the hearing is called to order 
will then be recognized.
    Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we 
have set up an email address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or 
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to 
your staffs.
    Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on 
at this time.
    Well, good morning, and welcome to today's hearing. This 
morning we are honored to have Secretary Tom Vilsack to discuss 
his vision for USDA during his second tour at the Department.
    Thank you for answering President Biden's call to return to 
service after having been the longest-serving member of 
President Obama's Cabinet.
    You are the first Cabinet Secretary to testify before the 
House Appropriations Committee this year, and we really 
appreciate your taking time to be with us today, even while you 
are still settling in and working on your long to-do list. We 
look forward to hearing your thoughts on key priorities over 
the year ahead.
    Let me also take this opportunity to say thank you for 
moving quickly to resume assistance payments to farmers and to 
implement the American Rescue Plan. Swift actions are 
desperately needed to lift rural America out of the pandemic, 
especially our small farms and food insecure populations.
    The pandemic and climate change present new major 
challenges, while obstacles related to access to nutritious 
food, a stable farm economy, racial justice, and developing 
communities in rural America still persist.
    Addressing these issues while continuing to effectively 
deliver the services of the Department is certainly going to 
require a lot of hard work and our best efforts, and we pledge 
to work with you collaboratively.
    While we only have the bare outlines of the fiscal 2022 
budget, we will talk about it. In addition, I am particularly 
interested in understanding how the American Rescue Plan will 
feed into ongoing and future efforts at the Department.
    I look forward to working with you to build upon the 
investments that were made in the Rescue Act related to rural 
healthcare, assisting socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers, and carrying forward the technical assistance, 
outreach, research, and education programs to benefit the many 
groups that your Department serves.
    I look forward to working closely with you to advocate for 
our farmers, our ranchers, and our rural communities.
    Let me add, Mr. Secretary, that I want to personally thank 
you for your early and responsive conversations regarding 
staffing at the Department with competent and diverse staffers, 
a team that can carry out the very important mission of USDA.
    I look forward to your testimony.
    And now let me ask our distinguished ranking member, my 
partner, Mr. Fortenberry, if he has any opening remarks. And if 
so--and I presume so--I would like to recognize him at this 
time.
    Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I am so 
grateful for your leadership, your willingness to host this 
first hearing with the Secretary of the new administration.
    And, Secretary Vilsack, welcome. It is good to see you 
again. I have a simple question for you. How is the new job? 
Or, should I say, how is the old job regenerated? Something 
like that.
    I would like to hear your perspective and your vision and, 
frankly, that is what I want to talk to you about today, just a 
couple of big ideas, the primary one being what I call the farm 
of the future.
    As I see it, it is the wedding of high tech and high touch, 
connecting the rural to the urban, the farmer to the family, 
the farm to the table. It is about a recreation of food culture 
and the use of technology to advance precision agriculture, to 
increase yields and revenue to the farmer, as well as advancing 
environmental science and security as we feed ourselves and 
feed the world.
    Mr. Secretary, as you know, America has such extraordinary 
natural resources if we understand the value of stewardship of 
our land and also the history of technology transfer from our 
university systems that has created the space of American 
greatness through agriculture. We are so successful that we 
often forget.
    And last year, I should point this out, Secretary Vilsack, 
Secretary Perdue did visit my district, and I would like to 
extend the same invitation to you as soon as it is possible. 
And what I would like to point out is that we had everyone at 
the table, from traditional livestock producers, row crop 
producers, even a pair of twin young men who are part of a 
fifth-generation farm who have used entrepreneurial skills to 
buy the local bar on Main Street and started growing crops, 
hops for specialty Whiskey production and other value add 
products, an amazing reality TV type of story.
    In addition to that, we had a young, first-generation 
American from Africa who started a niche livestock business, 
specialty vegetable producers, even one gentleman who has 
transformed a city block in Lincoln where I live into an urban 
farm.
    The point of all of this is that we have a very large 
agricultural family and it is an exciting space to consider how 
we align the Department's expertise with this reality and new 
vision for agriculture.
    Let me discuss, Mr. Secretary, a couple of particular 
seize-the-moment options.
    First, it is rural broadband. And as much as I dream about 
megabytes and megapixels, I really think we should try to move 
beyond the term ``rural broadband'' to what I call an ecosystem 
of livability. In fact, I have said this term, ``ecosystem of 
livability,'' so much that Chairman Bishop is even starting to 
like it, I think. I may have convinced him.
    Anyway, the point being, this pandemic has given rise to a 
digital leap and it is about telehealth and distance learning 
and telework and precision agriculture and e-commerce for our 
small businesses in our rural communities. This truly is a 
transformative moment if we can properly seize it.
    And here is the concern. When the inspector general came to 
visit us recently, I asked her the question: What is the 
outcome metrics for success in these programs? And she said: I 
don't know.
    That is a place where we have to work together to ensure 
that the funds that we are expending can actually meet the 
holistic needs of rural communities.
    Second, Mr. Secretary, I want to raise the issue of the 
Blue Ribbon Commission for Higher Education. You were kind 
enough to discuss this with me in an earlier phone call, and 
Chairman Bishop and I have discussed this as well, regarding 
the possibilities of new emerging consortium between 1862 and 
1890 institutions, the modernization of ag research to fit the 
farm of the future, the values propositions for students as we 
wed traditional ag sciences, like agronomy and animal 
husbandry, with new emerging sciences, such as environmental 
studies, conservation, and international development.
    And I would like to request that you press NIFA, now that 
this is a law, to ensure that this work gets underway quickly. 
We would appreciate that.
    Third big idea, Mr. Secretary, conservation. Our world is 
screaming for meaning, and I don't believe that any person or 
any thing should be thrown away. And it is this deeper value of 
conservation, of being a good steward of the gifts of our 
natural resources, properly using them for our own well-being, 
but also regenerating them for our well-being is a 21st century 
ethos that I believe has deep meaning.
    The question becomes then, how can we use our conservation 
programs for a couple of outcomes: enhanced environmental gains 
combined with healthy harvesting and enhanced revenue to the 
farmer to meet the real possibility of sustainability, which is 
both regenerative and valuable at the same time.
    Sustainability is those two things, regeneration and 
return. And as we all know and celebrate, our farmers and 
ranchers are the first stewards of the land.
    So, Mr. Secretary, I know this is a bit of a more of a 
light-hearted opening, but I think, frankly, people are 
fatigued by all of the government infighting. Let's get some 
good things done together. I look forward to working with you. 
Thanks so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. As usual, you are 
very eloquent as well as elegant.
    Let me take this opportunity to welcome the chairwoman of 
the full Appropriations Committee who is with us this morning. 
And I am certain that she would like to have some opening 
remarks as we greet and welcome Secretary Vilsack.
    So at this time, I am pleased to recognize Chair Rosa 
DeLauro, the gentlelady from Connecticut, chair of the 
Appropriations Committee.
    Ms. DeLauro, you are now recognized.
    The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to say a 
thank you to you and to Ranking Member Fortenberry for the 
opportunity to speak here this morning.
    Secretary Vilsack, welcome back to the Appropriations 
Committee. I look forward to your testimony on the 
administration's 2022 discretionary budget request and your 
vision, your vision for the Department in the year ahead. It 
was a pleasure to work with you during your first term as 
Secretary, and I admire your deep dedication to American 
agriculture and rural America.
    Please know that the invitation is always open for you to 
come to visit Connecticut, to see firsthand the State's 
diversity--our family farm dairies, nursery and greenhouse 
operations, our specialty crop growers. And farmers in my 
district and across Connecticut are models of regenerative 
agriculture and sustainable food production.
    And my city of New Haven is one of the few cities in the 
country with a full-time Food Policy Director dedicated to 
reforming the food system and promoting urban agriculture.
    The COVID-19 pandemic created the largest public health and 
economic crisis in a generation, and our food system was not 
spared. Early on, farmers faced severe supply chain disruptions 
that shut down their markets and threatens their livelihoods.
    I appreciated your assistance and the insight that you 
provided to me and to my staff last summer as we were trying to 
address this issue. Some of the problems have been addressed 
while other challenges remain.
    The pandemic has also pulled back the curtain on the food 
and nutrition crisis that continues to plague our Nation. 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, 
hunger remains nearly three times higher than the pre-pandemic 
level. And households with children are more likely to report 
not getting enough to eat, with as many as 11 million children 
living in a household facing hunger, according to the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities.
    That is unconscionable. I believe that you believe it is 
unconscionable. And it was Senator Robert Kennedy that said, 
and I quote: ``I believe that, as long as there is plenty, 
poverty is evil.''
    The skyrocketing hunger adds to the longstanding inequities 
of our food system, including issues like food deserts, which 
restrict access to food, but, importantly, fresh and healthy 
foods which we are so concerned about, and disproportionately 
the impact on low-income people and families of color. It is 
especially concerning because we know that diet-related chronic 
diseases, like obesity, hypertension, worsen COVID-19 outcomes.
    So in the context of building back better, Mr. Secretary, I 
would say you are going to be very busy. I want to thank you 
for your swift action in implementing the American Rescue Plan, 
which extended the 15 percent food stamp increase in the 
Pandemic-EBT program.
    I look forward to collaborating and partnering with you on 
our shared priorities, which is why I am pleased by the 
initiatives outlined in the Discretionary Request released last 
week. The request expands investments in rural economies aimed 
at increasing quality of life and reducing persistent poverty 
in rural areas, which I know is an important focus for our 
subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop.
    Additionally, the request addresses racial equity in 
agriculture by increasing funding for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and establishes an Equity 
Commission to review the distribution of farm programs. These 
efforts would build on the $5 billion in debt relief to Black, 
Brown, and Native farmers in the American Rescue Plan. I 
appreciate the commitment to this issue of systemic 
discrimination.
    I am pleased with the increased funding for USDA science 
and research agencies, which had to endure 4 years of repeated 
attacks. Agencies like the Economic Research Service, the 
National Institute of Food and Agriculture were targeted, 
hollowed out, and moved from Washington, D.C. And your task is 
to rebuild and refocus these agencies, which have long been 
trusted for their unbiased research and expertise.
    And agricultural research is as important now as it has 
ever been. I believe that research holds the key to making 
agriculture a solution to the climate crisis. We ought to 
advance regenerative agriculture practices that capture carbon 
by building soil organic matter.
    And we should pursue parity and research funding for 
alternative proteins. The United States can continue to be a 
global leader on alternative protein science, and these 
technologies can play an important role in combating climate 
change and adding resiliency to our food system.
    I also welcome the $74 million increase to the Food Safety 
and Inspection Service to bolster small and regional meat 
processing. FSIS' resources disproportionately go to the big 
corporate meatpackers.
    That is a problem because, according to the Department's 
own data, while consolidation in meatpacking has increased 
since 2000, consumer prices for beef, pork, poultry skyrocketed 
by 82 percent, 44 percent, and 33 percent, respectively.
    It is time we rethink current policies that have allowed 
monopolies to flourish at the expense of farmers and consumers.
    And speaking of FSIS, I want to personally let you know how 
disheartened I am by the agency's actions over the last year. 
During the pandemic, workers in meat plants have been treated 
as expendable and exploited. A recent Freedom of Information 
Act request obtained emails with industry representatives and 
showed that FSIS leadership, many of whom are still at the 
agency, spent more time worrying about the public image of the 
industry over the lives of workers and Federal inspection 
personnel.
    Secretary Vilsack, that agency needs reform.
    Speaking of reform, I believe the Department needs to 
rethink its role in international trade. And whether it is 
tainted Brazilian beef imported by meatpackers who sell it here 
with a ``Product of USA'' label or other food imports from 
countries with production systems that degrade natural 
resources, the United States should never pursue trade deals at 
the expense of American farmers, food safety, and jobs.
    And lastly, I look forward to hearing more about your 
plans--exciting plans--to fight hunger, strengthen nutrition 
security. These must be our priority, and I agree with your 
previous statements--we should fund our priorities.
    I believe there are areas to act within the discretionary 
budget, as well as the forthcoming mandatory request, but I 
also want to underscore the urgency of a comprehensive and 
coordinated response, especially as Congress considers a future 
recovery package focused on rebuilding our Nation's physical 
and social infrastructure.
    I thank you very, very much for your being here. I look 
forward to your testimony.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. DeLauro.
    We are also delighted to have our full committee ranking 
member with us this morning. She has worked collaboratively, 
cooperatively, offering leadership with the committee, and 
recognizing, of course, that we will have differences of 
opinion on policy. But she has led the committee and worked 
where possible for us to be able to find bipartisan consensus.
    So I would like to now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, 
Ms. Granger, the ranking member of the full Appropriations 
Committee.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
inviting me. And thank you for those kind words and for holding 
this hearing today so that we can hear Secretary Vilsack's 
plans for the Department of Agriculture.
    The events of the past year have affected virtually every 
sector of our economy. This is especially true for our farmers 
and ranchers.
    Thanks to the staff at USDA, programs were quickly 
implemented to help those affected by the pandemic. In addition 
to providing direct support to our farmers and ranchers, USDA 
provided temporary assistance to families who had their incomes 
reduced.
    I am especially thankful for the efforts of the Department 
and our local communities to ensure children were fed when they 
were not in school. Not only were our schools closed as a 
result of the pandemic, of course we know, but in-person doctor 
visits were limited and it was a challenge to conduct normal 
business transactions. So the urgency to close the digital 
divide in rural America has never been more clear.
    Thirty million Americans, including 35 percent of rural 
Americans, live in areas without any access to the internet. 
Many small rural communities across Texas and the entire United 
States need high-speed internet in order to learn, access 
patient care, and conduct day-to-day business.
    I am proud of the investments we have made in broadband in 
a bipartisan way, and I look forward to continuing to work with 
this administration to secure additional resources.
    While I support these types of critical investments in our 
rural and agricultural communities, we need to find ways to 
reduce spending elsewhere. After providing trillions of dollars 
to address the pandemic, we are now faced with the stark 
reality of the highest level of debt our country has ever seen.
    I hope we can work together on an appropriations bill to 
adequately meet the needs of our farmers and ranchers in rural 
communities and the hungry, while also keeping in mind the 
impact that record levels of spending will have on generations 
to come.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Granger.
    And at this time Secretary Vilsack. Without objection, your 
entire written testimony will be included in the record, and I 
will recognize you now for your statement. And then we will 
proceed with questions. You may summarize or you may give the 
entire statement, it is completely up to you. But we are 
certainly happy to welcome you and look forward to your 
comments.
    Secretary Vilsack, you are now recognized.
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to 
you and to Ranking Member Fortenberry and to Representative 
DeLauro and Representative Granger, thank you very much for the 
opportunity to appear before the committee today.
    Normally, I would read a statement, but I would ask the 
indulgence of the chair to allow me to speak a bit from the 
heart. Normally, I would talk to you all about numbers and the 
budget. But these are not normal times and this is certainly 
not a normal budget hearing.
    I think it is important to put this discretionary budget in 
the context of all of the other actions that are currently 
taking place and have taken place in relationship to the 
American Rescue Plan, in relationship to the American Jobs Plan 
that is pending, the mandatory budget that is forthcoming, and 
I believe the American Families Plan that is also forthcoming.
    It is often said that paradigm shifts start with big ideas, 
and I think that there are four big ideas encapsulated in all 
of these budgets and plans. And I would like to explain them 
briefly to you today and put them in the context of this 
budget.
    The first big idea is the notion that climate change, while 
it may be an existential threat, it also represents an 
extraordinary opportunity to bring profitability back to 
farming and to rural communities, to create jobs, and we need 
to take full advantage of that opportunity.
    You began that process, I think, and will begin that 
process by focusing as well on the American Jobs Plan that has 
resources for climate-smart agriculture, bio-based 
manufacturing, clean energy conversion.
    This budget also contains resources consistent with that 
vision of taking full opportunity of climate--an increase in 
the climate hubs, opportunities for rural utilities to convert 
to clean energy, a Civilian Climate Corps, increased research 
in climate, as well as aspects of this budget that are not the 
committee's responsibility, but clearly important to all 
Members of Congress, and that is additional resources to manage 
our forests properly.
    A second big idea incorporated in this budget and the plans 
that you all have discussed and will discuss is the notion that 
we are moving beyond the notion of compensating individuals who 
have individually suffered discrimination. When I was last 
Secretary, we focused on the settlement of the Pigford cases 
and other class actions for discrimination.
    We are moving beyond that now to look at how we might be 
able to root out systemic barriers that exist in our programs 
today that have created a significant gap between those who 
have had full access to our programs and those who have not.
    And this is certainly an opportunity for us to also 
recognize the cumulative long-term effect and impact of past 
discrimination and the need for us to close the gap and to 
recognize that cumulative impact.
    You all have done that, in part, through the Rescue Plan 
with the Debt Relief Act that we are now in the process of 
implementing at USDA. You have also created opportunities for 
new market access and land access for socially disadvantaged 
farmers to help us close the gap.
    This budget also reflects a desire to do so for communities 
that have been dealing with persistent poverty for far too 
long. We propose the re-establishment of a StrikeForce designed 
to specifically focus on areas where poverty has been so 
persistent and so deep, a specialized, very focused effort on 
trying to eradicate the root causes of poverty in those 
communities.
    It also reflects, as Representative Fortenberry suggested, 
the important role that minority-serving institutions can play 
of higher education and better coordination with all 
institutions of higher learning. That is one of the reasons why 
you will see increases in resources to the HBCUs and other 
minority-serving institutions in this budget.
    The third big idea is the notion that, as important as 
productivity is in agriculture, so is profitability and 
resiliency. We have learned from the pandemic the need for us 
to have greater resilience in our system.
    That is why the Rescue Plan created a supply chain 
investment, and that is why this budget involves and increases 
resources to help small processing facilities create more 
competition, more open markets, more opportunities for farmers 
to profit.
    I know my time is about to expire, Mr. Chair, so let me 
just briefly comment on the last and fourth big idea--that it 
is not just about food insecurity in this country, as important 
as that is, it is also about nutrition insecurity. The fact is 
we have 18.5 percent of our children who are obese. We have 70 
percent of our adults who are overweight or obese. It is 
causing terrific pressures on our healthcare system.
    It is important and necessary for us to jointly and focus 
not just on food insecurity, but also nutrition insecurity. 
Your Rescue Plan does that by providing bonus resources for 
WIC, by increasing the SNAP benefit. This budget also continues 
that commitment by fully funding WIC, by focusing on summer EBT 
opportunities, by creating equipment grants, so that schools 
and others can produce nutritious, quality food for our 
children.
    Mr. Chair, I look forward to the questions of the committee 
and look forward to working with all of you to carry out these 
four big ideas that will result in significant paradigm shifts, 
greater equity, and greater opportunity in rural places.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    We will now proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier, 
we will begin with the chair and ranking member, then 
alternating majority and minority with members present at the 
time the hearing starts in the order of seniority. After that I 
will recognize members not present at the time the hearing was 
called to order.
    Each member will have 5 minutes in each round, so please be 
mindful of your time.
    I will begin.
    Mr. Secretary, I understand that you are limited in what 
you can say about the so-called skinny budget that was released 
last week, but I am going to try anyway. Two questions.
    First is the Civilian Climate Corps, which the budget says 
would create a new pathway to good-paying jobs in rural 
America. Can you talk about the concept? And is there any 
possibility that that would be under your jurisdiction, under 
the jurisdiction of USDA?
    And, of course, you mentioned earlier the StrikeForce 
Initiative, which you created in 2010 and for which you are 
requesting $32 million. StrikeForce aims to target assistance 
to rural areas with chronic poverty. Briefly talk about that 
and why you so strongly support that.
    And the second question I would like to include after you 
address those briefly is regarding rural healthcare under the 
American Rescue Plan. It included my proposal to provide $500 
million for healthcare facilities and vaccine distribution.
    We wrote it broadly, and while it was developed in the 
middle of the pandemic, we intended to address also the 
systemic impacts that are stemming from the pandemic. For 
example, the bill allows reimbursement for revenue lost during 
the COVID-19 pandemic, including revenue losses incurred prior 
to the awarding of the grant.
    A recent study found that in 22 States, 25 percent or more 
of rural hospitals were at immediate risk of closure. The 
pandemic only intensified the financial crisis at rural 
hospitals.
    Though the bill was only signed about 5 weeks ago, can you 
share your thoughts on how you see this program unfolding.
    Thank you for your answers, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, the Civilian Climate Corps 
is patterned, I think, after the Civilian Conservation Corps, 
which we currently have in the Forest Service, where there are 
over 10,000 members who are basically volunteer and/or retained 
to provide assistance and help and to expand the opportunities 
for the Forest Service to do a better job of maintaining and 
managing our forests.
    We certainly at USDA will have a role with reference to the 
Civilian Climate Corps. I think the fact that we established 
the Conservation Corps gives us an opportunity to replicate 
this in terms of climate.
    What this is, is really encouraging people to participate 
in an effort to improve opportunities to sequester carbon, to 
better maintain and utilize and embrace climate-smart 
agricultural practices, regenerative practices, focus on urban 
agriculture, community opportunities as well.
    It is very expansive, and I suspect it is going to be an 
interagency, multiagency effort, and USDA will play an 
important and critical role.
    On StrikeForce, it really is designed, Mr. Chair, to 
understand in those persistently poor areas they simply do not 
know how to play this game. They don't know how to apply for 
the financial resources that may be available.
    StrikeForce basically creates a team of people that will go 
into these communities, work with a community-building 
organization that is trusted, be able to identify the problems 
that the community has to address, and then be able to work 
through the system to ensure that they receive benefits.
    In the previous administration, in the Obama 
administration, we invested $23.8 billion in StrikeForce areas. 
We want to focus on the 380-some counties where poverty has 
been persistent for over 30 years, persistent and consistent 
with Representative Clyburn's ideas.
    On your healthcare program, essentially what we are doing 
is providing resources to each State rural development office 
for distribution and application, whether it is a small $25,000 
grant that will allow a community health center to stay open or 
whether it is potentially a million-dollar project that would 
potentially provide opportunities for telehealth to be expanded 
into remote rural areas.
    We want to provide as much discretion and as much 
opportunity, to provide as much help and assistance as 
possible. A portion of those resources will likely be retained 
in the national office so as States use up their State 
allocation, we will be in a position to be able to fund those 
projects that perhaps will move the dial significantly and 
provide help and assistance. And then our expectation is to get 
these resources out as quickly as possible.
    I have also been calling governors of States to advise them 
of the existence of this proposal specifically. I talked to 
your Governor, Governor in Georgia recently. And I will 
continue to do so, to reach out to governors to make sure they 
are aware of this program so that they can take full advantage 
of it as well.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Although I have 54 seconds left, I will at this time yield 
to the Ranking Member, Mr. Fortenberry, for his questions.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, again, welcome, Mr. Secretary. Nice to see you again.
    Let me return to something that I referenced in my opening 
remarks. Rural broadband is more than wires laid and money 
spent. It is about the meaning of that process. Are we 
promoting an ecosystem of livability by enhancing telework and 
telemedicine, distance learning and precision agricultural, and 
all the other potential benefits that can come forth through, 
again, the digital leap that we have undertaken, particularly 
during the pandemic?
    We are spending a lot of money here. It is not clear to me, 
though, we have the proper metrics in place.
    So with that said, in regard to the next round of ReConnect 
internet grants, how can we do a better job of measuring the 
success of these high-speed internet investments across rural 
America--metrics beyond just physical infrastructure and money 
spent?
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think one way is to 
make sure that the level of broadband assistance and help that 
is being provided in remote areas is actually adequate to do 
the job that you envision as part of that ecosystem you talked 
about.
    The reality is, you can have broadband, but if the 
downloads and upload speeds are not significant or are not 
sufficient, you can check the box, but you actually haven't 
improved the quality.
    One of the things we are going to be focusing on is making 
sure that there is a minimum level of uptick and download 
speeds that will make it significant and create those 
opportunities for telehealth, for distance learning, for being 
able to operate your business out of your home. We have learned 
this during the pandemic, of the importance of this.
    Secondly, I think it is important for us to understand 
there is an emotional involvement here. For those of us who 
have been isolated during COVID, the ability to have FaceTime 
and Skype and the ability to see our children and our 
grandchildren, incredibly important. That is part of that 
ecosystem you talked about. If you don't have the proper speeds 
and if you don't have the understanding of how these 
technologies can be used, you may not fully take advantage of 
them.
    So I think, in addition to installing the wire or having 
the 5G or whatever it is, you also have to have some 
opportunities for community colleges or others to basically 
help train individuals to fully utilize the technology as well. 
Young people certainly understand it. People my age maybe not 
so much. But we ought to all be able to use this resource.
    Mr. Fortenberry. It is also a question of cost, when you 
have a mother writing to me that she is sitting in the school 
parking lot trying to access the free WiFi so her child can do 
the homework that is assigned in a community that is a little 
bit larger than our traditional definition of rural, but it is 
rural in character. There is another level of difficulty there, 
a cost issue.
    Secretary Vilsack. I think it requires coordination between 
USDA and the other agencies that have impact and effect on 
this. There is a substantial amount of money in the Rescue Plan 
and an even greater amount of money in the Jobs Plan. Depending 
upon what you all decide to do, there is going to be 
significant resources.
    And that is important. You have to fund this. There is no 
question about it. But you also have to make sure that it is 
used properly and understood the power of it. And I think there 
is a responsibility that we have to make sure that those 
resources are well spent.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, let's all keep thinking critically 
on the question, because, again, I think we are in a 
transformative moment in this regard. These technologies have 
existed, but they never existed in such a penetration as we 
have seen and created the necessity. And if there can be a 
bright spot emerging from the pandemic, this could be one in 
terms of enhanced productivity and well-being.
    Let me turn to another topic right quick.
    Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, recently said that the 
world's wealthiest nation, America, need to go to 100 percent 
synthetic beef because of concerns about climate change.
    Well, Mr. Secretary, you know how that would go over where 
you and I come from. What I call ``fake meat'' as it impacts 
the possibility of reducing climate change, which is minuscule 
in comparison to other problems that we have, would be so 
disruptive in terms of nutritional value of beef and the proper 
leveraging and stewardship of our extraordinary advantages of 
the resources that we have, particularly where we come from.
    Do you agree with Bill Gates?
    Secretary Vilsack. What I do agree with is the fact that 
our farmers are, in fact, great stewards, and I think that they 
are embracing the notion of sustainability. And I think we need 
to invest in that notion. I think there is an opportunity for 
farmers to embrace climate-smart agricultural practices, to 
embrace animal welfare and stewardship, and be able to allow us 
to message the ability and importance of animal protein 
production.
    I don't think we necessarily can create a circumstance 
where we bar certain technologies. I think we need to compete, 
and I think we can compete with the right resources and the 
right vision.
    I think we have the right vision. I think the vision that 
climate change creates opportunity, creates new profit centers 
for farmers can be embraced. And with the right policies and 
the right incentives, I think we will see wide adoption of 
climate-smart agriculture, of methane capture and reuse, of 
bio-based manufacturing.
    That is the transformative idea within climate. That is the 
opportunity to completely change the economy in rural America. 
And I will tell you, Congressman, I am very, very interested in 
making sure that my time at USDA is spent advancing that 
vision.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I agree with the vision as well. And 
I think we need to tell the story loudly and clearly, as you 
are doing and as I am trying to do and the chairman is doing, 
about the power and greatness of American agriculture.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    At this time, I would like to recognize the full 
Appropriations Committee chair, Ms. DeLauro, for any questions 
that she might have.
    Ms. DeLauro, you are now recognized.
    The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Secretary, I am impressed by your focus on hunger 
and nutrition security. And I know we had the opportunity to 
work to enact the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids legislation. And a 
new study this week said that school meals are now the 
healthiest source of food consumed in the United States. So 
quite an achievement.
    But I wondered if you could share your nutrition security 
plans. What ways can we work together and build on the previous 
success? What are the things that you have in mind with regard 
to the nutrition security?
    Secretary Vilsack. Madam Chair, every single child in this 
country, in a childcare facility, in a school, wherever they 
might find themselves to be, every single child, I think, has 
to have the opportunity to have access to nutritious, good, 
healthy food.
    That means additional resources for our child and adult 
care program. It needs a focus on making sure that we have 
sufficient resources going into our schools to allow them to 
expand school breakfast and to make it nutritious, to allow us 
to have a school lunch program that is available to all and is 
nutritiously available to all.
    It is an opportunity for us to essentially inform and 
provide consumers with the kind of information that will allow 
them as adults to make individual choices that are in the best 
interest of themselves and their family.
    It is a real concerted effort to understand that at the end 
of the day nutrition is so important.
    Let me give you this one example. Your job is going to fund 
Medicare and Medicaid. $160 billion of that budget is going to 
be spent on diabetes treatment--$160 billion. That is more than 
my budget, my entire budget.
    What if you cut it in half? What if you cut it 75 percent? 
The reality is, that is diet related. If you have better 
nutrition, those diabetes numbers go down. As they go down, 
your resources available for whatever goes up.
    So it is cost-effective for us to invest, particularly in 
our children, because we want them to have great habits as they 
go through life. We want them to be well-educated. To be well-
educated they have to be well fed, and well fed means healthy, 
nutritious food.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Let me move to a different topic. I have been an outspoken 
critic during the previous administration when what I view as 
the corrupt Brazilian meatpacker JBS, they received more than 
$100 million as part of the Department's so-called trade aid 
package.
    JBS is eligible, has received additional procurement 
contracts through the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. 
That concerns me because the Batista brothers, who own the 
parent company, have pled guilty to violating the Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act in relation to their illegal entry to and 
consolidation of the U.S. meatpacking sector.
    The question is simple. Why are we using the Federal 
procurement process at USDA to subsidize a foreign corrupt 
owned meatpacker? And would you agree that this procurement 
process could be reformed, better utilized to support local 
farmers, regional food systems, instead of this corporate 
monopoly?
    And this is even more troubling if the USDA plans to end 
the Farmers to Families Food Box.
    Can you comment, Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Vilsack. Madam Chair, I agree with you. I think 
we have to take a look at the procurement power of the Federal 
Government in making sure that we are incenting and awarding 
proper behavior, if you will, good employers, folks who support 
the value system that I think is inherent in the U.S. of taking 
care of people.
    I was as concerned as you were about recent issues in our 
meatpacking facilities in terms of the treatment of workers. 
That is unacceptable. And clearly we are going to take--we are 
going to ensure that that doesn't happen again.
    I think there is a process, an opportunity for us to look 
at our procurement programs. I think it is not just our 
procurement programs; I think it is a lot more. I think it is 
our regulatory structure and system in terms of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act to make sure that that is being appropriately 
enforced and is strengthened. I think it is about creating 
additional processing capacity in this country.
    I think there are resources that you have provided that 
will give us some creative opportunities to help that local and 
regional food system, that value-added food system prosper, to 
create competition, to create greater resiliency in the food 
supply system.
    So I think there is a number of different avenues in 
addition to procurement that we need to explore and need to 
look at within the Department so that we have the strongest, 
most resilient food supply system, a system that is fair and 
equitable, that treats people well, and rewards good behavior.
    The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I would just 
say, I hope you can take a look at what has been going on with 
JBS. I think you have, all of my colleagues on this committee 
have farmers, regional food systems, that really do need the 
assistance and the help rather than someone who is in violation 
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
    But thank you so much. I appreciate your responses. Thank 
you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Chairwoman DeLauro.
    I am now happy to yield for questions to the gentlelady 
from Texas, our ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Kay 
Granger.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Over the past several months we have seen commodity prices 
rise to near record levels. This is in part due to large 
purchases from China. When China stopped buying, our farm 
economy suffered.
    In a recent hearing before this subcommittee, Ranking 
Member Fortenberry asked the CEO of the Farm Credit 
Administration if our agricultural economy was too dependent on 
China. The CEO was clear that any time we are dependent on a 
single country we are at risk.
    What can your Department do to help promote U.S. 
agricultural products so that China cannot put our farmers and 
ranchers at such risk?
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I worked for 4 years in 
the dairy industry as president of the Dairy Export Council, 
and what I learned from that experience was the necessity of 
having deeper presence in alternative market opportunities. I 
think you are absolutely right. You can't be overreliant on a 
single market because that can cause great disruption.
    Southeast Asia is certainly ripe for that opportunity. 
There is opportunities in the Middle East as well. I think a 
longer-term strategy has to include Africa because one-half of 
the increased population in this world over the next 15 years 
is going to be in that continent. I think there are closer 
relationships we can develop as well in our own hemisphere.
    But deeper presence means three things.
    It means people on the ground who are essentially 
understanding and appreciating the market so that we have 
market insights so we can tailor our programs and our policies 
and our products to meet that market demand.
    It is about partnerships and the ability for U.S. commodity 
groups to be partnering with and our university systems to be 
partnering with universities and innovators in those markets to 
create new products that can use U.S. ingredients to produce 
what customers want in those markets.
    And it is about promotion. It is about continued promotion, 
continually telling the American story of agriculture in terms 
of the safety and stability of our supply and our capacity to 
be innovative.
    I think if you deepen presence in those additional markets 
you are going to see less reliance on China over time and a 
more diverse and more balanced and more resilient system.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    A second question. As I mentioned in my opening statement, 
over a third of rural America lacks adequate broadband. You 
have a successful program at USDA that has bipartisan support 
and the subcommittee has provided you with more than $2 billion 
over the past 4 years to fund it. Yet you have not released the 
funding for fiscal years 2020 and 2021.
    Can you provide us an update on your plan for our 
requesting proposals so the internet providers can deliver this 
critical need in rural America?
    Secretary Vilsack. The guidance we were providing to the 
industry was a bit confusing. We have simplified that guidance, 
which will allow more communities potentially to access those 
resources. And I expect and anticipate you are going to see the 
distribution of those resources in the very near future now 
that we have, sort of, simplified and clarified the rules under 
which the program is going to operate.
    I will say, as I responded to Representative Fortenberry, 
we are going to be very sensitive to making sure that as things 
are expanded, they are expanded in a meaningful way, which 
means that you have got upload and download speeds that 
actually make sense in today's world. But I think you are going 
to see much more progress on that over the course of the next 
several months.
    Ms. Granger. I certainly hope so.
    I have got a little time left. I have heard from farmers 
and ranchers in Texas that they have seen a delay in services 
from the Farm Service Agency because of the Biden's 
administration's limiting offices to 25 percent worker 
capacity.
    I understand the concern for the safety of your field 
staff, but have you provided flexibility to increase worker 
capacity at these county offices, especially during planting 
season, which is vital? Also, when do you expect to allow these 
offices to return to full capacity?
    Secretary Vilsack. I want to reassure you that we are 
tracking the activities and workload to make sure that we are 
on track. And I can assure you that, based on that evaluation, 
we are basically at the same level of service in terms of sign-
ups, et cetera, as we were pre-pandemic, which I think is a 
testimony to the incredible work of our Farm Service folks.
    We have provided flexibility. We received flexibility on 
the 25 percent rule. So those folks who want to get in and can 
get in and socially distance in a safe way, we are allowing 
that to happen. Those who have concerns about this are still 
allowed to continue to work at home.
    We have a work safety plan. We are going to obviously be 
guided by that to make sure that when we reopen fully and 
completely we do so where the workforce feels comfortable and 
confident that----
    Ms. Granger. Let's go back to the delay in services from 
the Farm Service Agency. Are you saying there hasn't been--that 
hasn't been a problem?
    Secretary Vilsack. It has not been. We tracked it. I am 
happy to provide you the charts to show you the level of sign-
ups for the last several years, and we are right on track to 
where we were pre-pandemic.
    Ms. Granger. Please do that.
    Secretary Vilsack. There may be an individual circumstance, 
but I will tell you, system-wide, we are doing exactly what we 
have always done.
    Ms. Granger. Okay. Send me those and I will appreciate it 
very much.
    Thank you.
    Secretary Vilsack. Very well.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Granger.
    And, Mr. Secretary, at this time I am pleased to yield to 
the subcommittee chair of Interior, Ms. Chellie Pingree, the 
gentlelady from Maine.
    You may now be recognized to ask your questions.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for 
holding this hearing.
    And, Mr. Secretary, really appreciate your time with us 
today. And thank you so much for your opening remarks really 
focusing on the important big ideas that are a critical part of 
your agenda and this administration's agenda.
    And I want to say I really appreciate your deep level of 
understanding of engaging farmers and the importance of being 
our partners in climate change, in the opportunities that are 
there for increased revenues for farmers, as well as the 
important role that they can play using agriculture as a really 
important tool to sequester carbon and do so many of the other 
things we need to do around renewable energy and new products, 
as well as making sure we finally deal with racial injustice 
issues and food insecurity and understanding that food 
insecurity is much more about nutrition and the quality of the 
food, not just calories.
    So I didn't mean to repeat your speech, but I just 
appreciate so much the direction you are taking us in here.
    So I want to go from the big picture down to kind of like 
the minutia a little bit. I am really interested in the climate 
hubs. It is an important part of the funding in my bill, the 
Agriculture Resilience Act. And I know you are talking about 
increasing that funding by 40 million next year. I think they 
are a little-understood part of what has already been set up at 
the USDA, how the Forest Service plays a role in this.
    But just the benefit that that could be if we really 
enhanced their capacity and increased their funding. Can you 
just talk a little bit about that and how you see them being 
used?
    Secretary Vilsack. It is a coordinated effort between the 
Forest Service, NRCS, and our research efforts at USDA. And it 
is designed to provide a quality assessment of the risk 
associated with climate and, most importantly, creating 
opportunities to work with farmers, ranchers, and producers on 
mitigation and adaptation strategies and embracing climate-
smart agricultural practices so that we reduce the risk and we 
don't suffer a decline in production, we are capable of 
continuing to produce the abundance and to do it in a 
sustainable way.
    Tremendous partnership, well used, but not as well-known. 
And this is an opportunity, I think, for us to really ramp up 
our capacity to provide the knowledge and the information 
necessary for farmers.
    I think farmers are really, really ready for this. I think 
they are hungry for this. They need the information, they need 
the knowledge, they need the expertise.
    And so as a result, we need those climate hubs to ramp up. 
We need those climate hubs to be more active. To do that they 
are going to need a few more folks. They are going to need a 
little bit of additional resource. That is why we put it in the 
budget.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, again, I just want to thank you 
for doing that. I think it is really important to have that 
assist.
    I just want to say that our land grant university has let 
us know that they particularly benefit from them. That is one 
of the regions where there actually has been at least some 
amount of funding.
    And coming from the most forested State in the Nation where 
we care deeply about climate change, but also about 
opportunities for forest innovation, forest practices, the role 
of the forest in sequestering carbon, I think it has 
particularly been important to us. But they are definitely 
underresourced, and I am glad to see you doing that.
    And I also think they play an important role in this 
ability to translate the abstract goals that we have down to 
how do we really actually provide assistance to farmers in 
making these transitions and, as you said, reducing the risk.
    My second point is about the organic livestock and poultry 
practices rule. I feel like I am always the one on the 
committee that asks you to go back to origin of livestock or 
this one.
    So can you give us a little sense of where we are with 
that? What is the timeline for restoring it? It seems like, you 
know, it has been so hopelessly delayed. Well, you know all the 
details. But when can we look for that?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think the reality is that 
concerns were raised about the economic analysis, concerns have 
been raised about the way in which both the Obama 
administration and the Trump administration have been handling 
these rules.
    So we are essentially going to start from scratch to make 
sure we do it right. And on the livestock rule, we are going to 
basically--we are going to provide additional opportunity for 
input on a couple of tweaks and changes that we have made, so 
that once we get that input that part should be advanced fairly 
soon.
    The origin issue may be a little bit more complicated--or, 
I mean, the poultry issue may be a little bit more complicated 
because I think we need to start from scratch, we need a proper 
analysis, we need to make sure we have the strongest possible 
legal basis for whatever it is we decide to do. So that may 
take a little bit longer.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, can you commit that you will make 
this a top priority? I just think it is important to resolve 
this for once and for all.
    Secretary Vilsack. I agree. And it is and it will be.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. I am out of time. Thank you so much 
for your answers.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
    And at this time I am happy to recognize the gentleman from 
Maryland, Dr. Harris.
    You are now recognized for your questions, sir.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for, you know, appearing 
before the committee.
    I have a couple of--my main concern for the Maryland Farm 
Bureau is the issue of whether or not the estate taxes will be 
changed, you know, under a Biden tax plan.
    And if you could just briefly mention--as you know, you 
know, the step-up basis plus decreasing the exclusion would, I 
think, be very harmful for a lot of farmers, especially 
multigenerational farmers. Are these issues that you are aware 
of?
    Secretary Vilsack. I am aware of the issues, 
Representative. I think it is important to point out that, the 
way these can be structured, there are very, very few--at the 
end of the day, very, very few farms that can be impacted and 
affected by this.
    I mean, for example, the special-use valuation allows a 
recalculation of value for most farms to get them well under 
whatever the threshold might be for the establishment of an 
estate tax. So that is an important consideration. There is 
also a fairly significant long-term capacity, if there is 
estate tax, to be able to pay at a very low interest rate.
    So I don't think the issue here--I don't think, at the end 
of the day, it is going to result in, you know, a destruction 
of the ability to pass on farms. I think there are tools in 
that Tax Code that will allow most farms to be transferred 
without difficulty.
    I don't know the particulars that are being discussed, if 
any, but I will tell you that I do know from my own personal 
experience doing tax returns and estates for farmers for many, 
many years that there are a number of ways that farmers can 
use, and do use, to avoid estate and inheritance tax.
    Mr. Harris. All right. Well, I will transmit that back to 
the Farm Bureau, but I expect that, you know, they know what 
the situation is in Maryland, and I suspect that a one-size-
fits-all approach could be harmful to my local farmers.
    One other issue where the USDA got caught up in is the blue 
catfish inspection issue. I know I talked about it extensively 
with the previous Secretary. Because the blue catfish, as you 
may or may not know, is an invasive species in the Chesapeake. 
It is decimating our rockfish and crab population.
    And because the U.S.--this is the only fish that the USDA 
inspects the processing of, instead of FDA. It has created a 
tremendous burden on our fishermen. They don't catch it 
commercially. They could, but they don't, because there are no 
processing facilities, basically, for it. And although I think 
we have a million dollars in last year's budget to help pay for 
some of the inspections, this is of great concern. Because if 
we don't carve out the Chesapeake Bay from this inspection 
regime, then the ecosystem is at risk.
    And do you know, is there a reason why the Chesapeake Bay 
shouldn't be carved out from this inspection system and get it 
back over to the FDA, which will allow commercialization of the 
catching of the blue catfish and control an invasive species?
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, will you give me some 
time to find out the response to your question? It is not 
something I--frankly, I can't answer it today. I don't know.
    Mr. Harris. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate that.
    Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to----
    Mr. Harris. Again, it is a very specific issue to the 
Chesapeake Bay. And the USDA normally doesn't do fish 
processing inspections. So the politics are interesting.
    One quick issue is the price of edible oils that, for a 
variety of reasons, has gone up, I am told, about 300 percent. 
And this could be, in fact, made even worse over the next few 
months.
    And is the USDA aware of the supply trend issues with 
edible oils and the potential impact on the food industry?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, certainly we are aware of 
significant disruptions in the supply chain. Transportation is 
a serious issue. Congestion at the ports, difficulties with 
containers, we are focused on that.
    We have expressed to the Maritime Commission the importance 
of doing what they need to do to make sure that we can get 
goods and services in and out of this country more quickly. I 
think it would be helpful if we could see investments in our 
infrastructure that would allow that to take place in a more 
efficient way.
    So we are aware of supply-chain disruption, and we are 
doing everything we can to make sure that those who have power 
and control and jurisdiction over those issues are aware and 
need to take action.
    Mr. Harris. Okay.
    And just two comments.
    You know, I agree with you on the problem of obesity in the 
country. I would suggest that some of the physicians have felt 
that one way we could help with it through the USDA is to align 
the food restrictions on the SNAP program with the food 
restrictions on the WIC program, which basically means that it 
would have to be nutritious foods.
    Because, you know, as we expand the SNAP program, as you 
are aware, we expand the availability of a lot of non-
nutritious food, as well, that a lot of people now believe in 
the medical field contribute--these foods contribute to the 
obesity crisis we have.
    So it is something, if you would think about, it would be 
great to have the support to in fact begin to look at 
encouraging not only food security but nutritious food security 
for Americans.
    And then, just finally, I have met with a lot of farmers in 
my district who are very disappointed. You know, the USDA is an 
agency that they thought just put farming as its priority, but 
I will tell you, this farm loan assistance for socially 
disadvantaged farmers has got a lot of them upset, because an 
agency that they thought was color-blind is now color-
preferenced. And they worry that this means that the USDA, 
which typically doesn't engage in politics, is now part of a 
``woke'' agenda. And I will just leave it at that.
    They are very disappointed, because your agency has a great 
reputation within the Federal Government for being a 
nonpolitical agency, and it looks like it has become very 
political.
    And I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, thank you, Dr. Harris. Your time has 
expired.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Mark Pocan.
    Mr. Pocan, you are now recognized for your questions.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. And it was 
heartening to hear your priorities for the Department, so thank 
you for sharing that.
    Just so you know, I have a largely agricultural district, 
outside of the Madison metropolitan area, and a lot of dairy, 
soy, corn. I, myself, live in a rural town of 850 people. I can 
walk 5 minutes from the end of my driveway to walking by cows 
pasturing. So, very much a part of my district. We also are the 
home to UW-Madison, one of the main ag research universities, 
land-grant universities in the country.
    I would like to extend an invitation to you, as well, to 
the district sometime. I have so many areas I could cover, I am 
not going to do it in 5 minutes. But Secretary Perdue did come 
during his tenure, and we really appreciated when he came by 
and visited one of the billings I am going to bring up.
    If it is all right, I am going to bring up four areas, Mr. 
Secretary, and then let you comment, because I want to make 
sure I get these in.
    The first one is, recently we have had an issue with our 
State not having an emergency order in place around COVID that 
could have cost us $70 million of SNAP benefits every single 
month.
    We reached out to your office a while ago. I believe as of 
last night our Governor has worked out a deal with the USDA 
that we will still be able to get it, with an executive order 
signed by Secretary Karen Timberlake. But I just wanted to 
confirm that, because, obviously, it is very important. Our 
Republican legislature, either ineptly or insufficiently, 
didn't deal with this, and it was going to cost us money, and 
we want to make sure what we have in place works.
    Second, as I mentioned, UW-Madison is one of our premier 
agricultural research universities. On campus, the Agricultural 
Research Service has a building that Secretary Perdue visited 
when he was in Wisconsin in my district, and my only regret is 
they swept the cockroaches out before they had him come by. It 
is World War II-era building. It is the number-one priority for 
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. We co-locate with the USDA 
there on a program around the vegetable crop research unit, and 
would love to make sure that that can get prioritized. We do 
need some assistance in funding for that. And, again, would 
love to have you see the facility.
    Three, third issue around hemp. I know there are some new 
rules on the THC. Some of my younger farmers, especially, have 
been trying to grow hemp, and they have been concerned because 
the limits were so low that there was a huge financial risk if 
they had to destroy their own crops. I would love to hear a 
little bit about what you see with that so I can give some good 
information to them.
    And then the final area is around consolidation. I was very 
heartened to see that the President's budget included resources 
for stepped-up antitrust enforcement in the agricultural 
sector. But, as you know, many areas, including places like 
Wisconsin that have a lot of family farms--I think we were 
number one in the Nation for dairy farm bankruptcies in the 
last year or two--it has been really tough. Consolidations have 
hit us hard. I would love to hear a little more about what your 
plan is around antitrust enforcement within the USDA.
    So I know I gave you a lot there, Mr. Secretary, but I 
figured that was the best way to do it and let you go at it 
with the remaining time.
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think if there is an 
emergency declaration at the State, your State would be 
entitled to participate with the allotment. And I think if what 
you said is accurate, obviously, we would move to a better 
place than we were after the Supreme Court decision in 
Wisconsin.
    ARS has a lot of needs in terms of infrastructure. I 
certainly will take back your concerns and make sure that they 
are aware of it and make sure that it gets on the list. And I 
will let you know essentially where it is on the list. It is a 
fairly long list because for many, many, many years we weren't 
investing as we needed to. We have caught up during the Obama 
administration, and I think it was continued during Trump's 
administration, but I think there is still quite a bit to do.
    On hemp, we did raise the--we did finalize the rule. It is 
0.3. I think it does create some certainty for the producer. 
The problem now is making sure that we coordinate with our 
Department of Justice friends so that we don't create a problem 
with our processing community. That is a tough issue, a 
difficult issue, but we are going to work through it.
    In terms of consolidation--I have 38 seconds--you know, 
strengthening the rules that exist, providing and investing in 
additional processing capacity that prevents competition, and 
working with the Department of Justice on a variety of issues, 
whether it is enforcement and making sure that, when there is 
antitrust issue, that the remedy actually addresses the 
challenge, and, whatever investigations they have, working 
collaboratively with USDA on making sure that we are focused in 
the right areas.
    I am down to 7 seconds, and----
    Mr. Pocan. Thanks.
    Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. There are other things I 
could say to you, but----
    Mr. Pocan. No, in the final 3 seconds, I just want to 
reiterate my invite to the district. Would love to have you 
come by sometime. Plus, it gets you closer to home.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
    At this time, I am happy to recognize the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Secretary Vilsack. Welcome back to the 
subcommittee. Thank you for joining us today to testify. A lot 
has changed since you were last in front of this subcommittee, 
but I look forward to working with you again in this 
administration.
    As you can imagine, I have a quite a few questions ready 
for you. And I plan to submit what we can't get to to the 
record for you to have the opportunity to respond to those that 
way. But the most important, pressing issue is that we are 
struggling today in the Central Valley.
    I want to thank you first for designating the 50 California 
counties, including my entire district, on March 5 as a primary 
natural disaster area due to the ongoing drought. Just last 
Thursday, you and the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, 
released a statement acknowledging the critical drought in the 
West.
    Though I thank you for this acknowledgment, more needs to 
be done to help our farmers and our water users in California. 
Agriculture production is a large part of our economy, but 
having a safe and reliable food supply is a serious national 
security issue for our country as well.
    Would you please tell me how the USDA plans to assist the 
Central Valley of California as we deal with this horrible 
historic drought?
    Secretary Vilsack. A couple things, Representative.
    Obviously, we are going to take a look at reconstituting 
the drought task force and resiliency task force that we had 
during the Obama administration when we dealt the last time 
with the drought in California to make sure that we are taking 
a look at the full range and suite of assistance that we can 
provide to producers and to make sure that we do this in an 
interagency process to make sure that it is not just the USDA 
but we make sure that other departments that potentially have 
equities here are brought into the process.
    Secondly, I think it is important for us to continue doing 
research. The better we are at utilizing the scarce amount of 
resources we have, obviously, it will allow us to deal with 
drought more effectively and more efficiently. And I think the 
ARS is very much--our Agricultural Research Service is very 
much involved in this, as is NIFA.
    And, obviously, we will continue to take a look at the full 
range of resources that we have under the various programs to 
provide help and assistance to farmers as they struggle through 
a very difficult time.
    So we fully appreciate the challenges they have. We are 
aware of it, and we will do everything we can to help.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. And I appreciate you 
bringing up that you have worked with other agencies. I think 
that is important, that we have as broad an approach to this 
obviously very complicated and important topic addressed as 
quickly as possible.
    And another one. And I know I have a couple minutes here. 
The USDA took bold action in 2020 to utilize moneys made 
available by Congress to purchase billions of dollars' worth of 
U.S. farm products for distribution to families in need through 
the Farmers to Families Food Box Program.
    While the program was a success in many ways, it also 
created unintended volatility in the U.S. dairy industry, as 
cheese was a mandated product under the program while other 
products, like butter, were largely left out of the boxes. This 
created huge imbalances between dairy farmers driven only by 
whether their farm was applying to a favored cheese 
manufacturing sector.
    USDA recently held an all-day listening session and comment 
period on the issue, which exposed some of these imbalances. 
Then, today, I was surprised to read in the news that USDA is 
canceling this important program altogether. This action seems 
directly to contradict your testimony that highlights the need 
to address the Nation's nutrition insecurity.
    Why are we learning about this in the news? And although it 
wasn't a perfect program, this program provided families with 
healthy, nutritious food options grown here in the U.S. What do 
you plan to do to provide healthy food like what was included 
in the food boxes to families in need?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are going to continue to provide 
healthy food, but we are going to do it through the most 
efficient system that we have.
    The reality is, the Food Box Program was set up to respond 
to COVID. It was a response to COVID. A lot of problems with 
it, Representative. A lot of problems. There was a significant 
difference of administrative costs. In some cases, people were 
charged a tremendous amount just to fill the boxes. There was 
an inadequate accounting of where the boxes were actually 
delivered. There was a lot of food waste and loss that we 
uncovered as a result of these listening sessions.
    So our theory is that we create opportunities through the 
TEFAP program, through what exists with our food banks and our 
food pantry system, which is incredibly efficient and 
incredibly effective at getting resources out to folks.
    So there is going to be a continuation. We just announced a 
produce box that will be funneled through that system. We have 
the Dairy Donation Program that we are going to set up, as 
well, to help the dairy industry.
    So we are going to try to take what we have learned at the 
best of that program and incorporate it into our traditional 
regular programs, which are very efficient in terms of food 
distribution. So, that way, I think you get the best of both 
worlds. You get product being used, product being available to 
people, nutritious product being available, but you get it 
through a very efficient and effective delivery mechanism that 
is accountable.
    Mr. Valadao. Well, I appreciate that. Making sure that we 
are actually getting American products to those who desperately 
need it is a priority. So I appreciate the answers.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    At this time, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from 
Illinois, one of our new members, Ms. Lauren Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. You are now recognized for your questions.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to Secretary Vilsack for joining us today.
    Two weeks ago, I had the honor of visiting the Northern 
Illinois Food Bank in Geneva, Illinois, and I was able to see 
up close the truly incredible work that their staff and 
volunteers are doing to keep the communities in my district 
fed, despite huge challenges and heightened demand due to the 
pandemic.
    During my visit, the Northern Illinois Food Bank stressed 
to me how the Farmers to Families Food Box Program has been 
invaluable for distributing fresh, nutritious, ready-to-load 
food to our neighbors. Between March of 2020 and February of 
2021, nearly a quarter of the over 1 million meals they 
distributed were supplied through the Food Box Program.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record a comment from the Northern Illinois Food 
Bank submitted to USDA supporting the Farmers to Families Food 
Box Program and suggesting improvements.
    Mr. Bishop. So ordered.
    Ms. Underwood. My understanding based on news reports from 
this morning is that USDA is ending the Farmers to Families 
Food Box Program next month. But I was really pleased to see 
that USDA announced a new fresh produce box program under the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP.
    Now, we know that the Farmers to Families Food Box Program 
was not without its flaws, but the food it provided has been a 
lifeline for families in my community. The Northern Illinois 
Food Bank has valued the variety of food it provided through 
the program, including the dairy and meat products. They also 
appreciated the program's flexibility, which has allowed them 
to distribute food boxes through many more of their agencies 
that typically can't distribute the TEFAP food.
    So, Mr. Secretary, do you anticipate the new TEFAP produce 
box program will be able to fill the current need? And are you 
considering flexibility, ease of distribution, and food variety 
in the TEFAP produce box program or other food box programs?
    Secretary Vilsack. The answer is that we are obviously 
trying to take the best of the Food Box Program and institute 
it into and implement it into our traditional distribution 
system.
    So I think you are going to continue to see the variety, 
you are going to continue to see the wholesomeness and the 
nutritious food being made available to folks. I think you are 
just going to see it in a slightly different delivery mechanism 
that is much more efficient and less costly, which means that 
we are going to have more resources for more food for more 
people, number one.
    Number two, we continue to have enormous capacity to 
purchase these other products and to incorporate them in what 
is being made available to food banks and the food pantries. 
And so I don't think you are going to see a decline or a 
reduction in the diversity of what is going to be made 
available to food banks. I think you are going to continue to 
see us being engaged in this. In fact, this budget asked for 
additional resources in the TEFAP program to be able to do more 
of what you want us to do.
    And I think, you know, we have also heard from a number of 
other food banks that had serious concerns and issues with the 
program. So what we are trying to do is trying to take the best 
of what we have heard and eliminate the things that didn't work 
particularly well, put it into a system that is well-known and 
well-functioning, to make sure that we continue to get access 
to as many people as possible with nutritious options and 
flexibility.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, I am certainly really pleased to hear 
that. The produce boxes are a great step. And there is 
obviously a deep level of need that likely requires greater 
support, so please do let us know about those additional 
resources that are needed.
    Now I would like to turn to another critical nutrition 
program. I am pleased to see that in your written testimony you 
called out the importance of WIC in addressing the disparities 
in maternal and child health outcomes, particularly the racial 
disparities.
    And I am the co-founder and co-chair of the Black Maternal 
Health Caucus, and so expanding WIC is a big priority for me. 
My Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act includes provisions that 
would extend WIC eligibility in the postpartum and 
breastfeeding periods to ensure that new moms have access to 
nutrition programs that are proven to save lives and improve 
maternal and child health outcomes.
    In the skinny budget, the administration is requesting a 
billion-dollar increase for nutrition programs, including WIC. 
Can you provide some detail on how you anticipate USDA would 
use that increased funding to expand WIC and improve maternal 
health, including if there are any statutory changes that you 
think may be necessary?
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think the first order 
of business with reference to WIC is to make sure the 50 
percent of participants who aren't participating do. And that 
is why we were pleased with the Rescue Plan that provided 
additional resources for us to reach out to States to figure 
out ways in which we can be innovative in creating better 
understanding of WIC and better participation in WIC.
    We want to close that 50-percent gap. That is the first 
order of business. The additional bonus that is in WIC because 
of the Rescue Plan, the additional resources we are asking for 
will allow us to continue to provide a decent benefit, but it 
doesn't help if people aren't taking advantage of it.
    We are looking for partnerships, we are looking for ways in 
which we can get the word out about WIC and make sure that 
folks fully participate. And I have reached out to Governors. I 
mentioned that I am calling Governors. I am calling Governors 
all across the country, encouraging them to work with us and 
their human services department to get the information out 
about WIC.
    You know, I was at a food bank recently where they put 
information in the box that they provide to families about 
SNAP. Well, why can't they also put something in there about 
WIC?
    I think we need to look for creative ways, and certainly 
would appreciate any idea you have that would expand outreach 
that would enable us to close that 50-percent gap. It is very 
concerning.
    Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir. Well, I certainly look forward 
to----
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you----
    Ms. Underwood [continuing]. Working with you on that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop [continuing]. Ms. Underwood. Your time has 
expired. Hopefully you can get back to a second round.
    I would like to recognize Mr. Moolenaar at this time, the 
gentleman from Michigan.
    The floor is yours, Mr. Moolenaar.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome back, Mr. Secretary. It is good to see you 
again.
    You may or may not be aware that we had a major flooding 
event in mid-Michigan in May of 2020. And last year's 
catastrophic flood was the result of a historic rain event and 
a failure of two dams in my congressional district. And it cost 
about $200 million worth of damage, and the rebuilding and 
recovery efforts continue as we speak.
    A major disaster declaration was issued by the President 
last July. And I am pleased to tell you that the USDA was one 
of the first Federal agencies to respond, and I am very 
grateful for that.
    The former USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, Bette Brand, came to my congressional district 
with a pledge to support our recovery process, and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service has been and continues to be an 
invaluable partner in providing Federal, critically needed, on-
the-ground response. And I am extremely grateful to your 
department.
    But we also continue to need assistance as we continue to 
rebuild. Last year's flooding was not an isolated incident. My 
hometown of Midland has experienced significant flood events 
several times over the last 25 years.
    In working closely with Federal stakeholders like USDA, as 
well as FEMA, NOAA, EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers, my 
State and local officials and community stakeholders are 
seeking your department's support for innovative, nature-based 
flood-mitigation measures to slow the flow of water during 
flood events and to protect the lives and livelihoods of those 
communities I represent.
    The creation of wetlands, conservation easements, and 
natural flood plains are examples of steps that can be taken to 
provide flood protection while also enhancing recreational, 
environmental, and conservation benefits.
    I would like to ask you today and the Department for your 
continued support and to work with me and the bipartisan 
Michigan delegation in Congress as we work together to develop 
and implement a coordinated Federal approach to mitigating the 
threat of future floods in the Great Lakes Bay region.
    And I would also like to personally invite you to come to 
mid-Michigan to see firsthand the efforts of USDA to date and 
the work that still needs to be done as we recover and rebuild 
from last year's historic flood event.
    Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I know that our team at 
USDA continues to be in close contact with the Four Lakes Task 
Force in the work that they are doing in helping to rebuild 
those communities. We are looking at ways in which the 
Community Facilities Program could potentially be of assistance 
and help. And, certainly, I know that the folks at NRCS stand 
ready to be as helpful as they possibly can with some of the 
projects that you just mentioned.
    I am happy to commit to you that we will continue to be 
cooperative and continue to look for ways in which we can be of 
assistance and be part of the team that rebuilds the area.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Wonderful. Well, I am very grateful for 
that. And, again, I would just like to personally invite you to 
come out and see firsthand the work that has been done and 
still needs to be done. And I am just grateful for that.
    If I could switch gears a minute, first of all, I want to 
be very supportive of your work in rural broadband and your 
support for that. I think the pandemic as well as the flooding 
have really demonstrated the importance of that.
    I also want to just talk a moment about dairy. And dairy 
farmers--and I know you know this well--make up a large portion 
of the agriculture industry in Michigan and in my district, and 
all face uncertainties about the future, especially with COVID.
    The dairy industry has been caught in the middle of ever-
changing meal patterns, particularly dairy suppliers of low-fat 
flavored milk. And I am wanting to ask what your willingness is 
to continue allowing schools to serve 1-percent flavored milk, 
particularly given that the 20 to 25 dietary guidelines for 
Americans know that 90 percent of the U.S. population does not 
meet dairy recommendations and also did identify low-fat milk 
as a recommended nutrient-dense beverage.
    Secretary Vilsack. You know, this is an interesting 
question, Congressman, because if you go with the no-fat milk, 
then kids don't drink it, and you lose the nutritional value 
and nutritional benefit of the vitamins and the nutrients that 
are in milk, the nine essential vitamins and nutrients and 
minerals.
    And so, to the extent that that alternative provides the 
opportunity for us to see more milk consumption, that is 
something I think we should absolutely take a look at. I mean, 
at the end of the day, we want kids drinking milk, because it 
is good for them.
    And so I am encouraging our team to basically take a look 
at that issue of, does it make sense to have a standard which 
essentially cuts off milk consumption, or is it better to have 
a standard that encourages milk consumption and where you get 
the benefits?
    And I think school districts obviously have, you know, a 
lot of issues that they need to take into consideration, but I 
think our team should be helpful in that respect.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Wonderful. I appreciate your thoughtful 
approach.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady 
from Minnesota, the chair of our Subcommittee on Defense, Ms. 
Betty McCollum, for any questions that she might have for 
Secretary Vilsack.
    Ms. McCollum.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I am so happy to have you back at the USDA, Mr. Vilsack. 
Your leadership and expertise will be critical in combating 
climate change, stabilizing our food and agriculture systems, 
and helping our Nation recover from COVID. So your experience 
will help us in all those areas.
    The pandemic, as has been pointed out by many, has 
increased food and nutrition insecurity, but I wanted to focus 
on some reports that have come back to light. Military members 
and their families are no different in their reliance on food 
banks, and we are seeing it dramatically increase.
    Hunger among military families is not new. The 2016 GAO 
report--and you might not have had a chance to look at this 
yet, sir, but someone in your staff can look at it for you--
points out that roughly 23,000 military families use SNAP. They 
spend more than $21 million in SNAP benefits on military bases 
alone.
    Many of us thought we had addressed this program years ago, 
only to find out that we are still having food insecurity with 
our military. A 2020 survey by Blue Star Families found that 14 
percent of active-duty families are reporting food insecurity. 
So the GAO report goes into all the reasons why this happens. 
It is a great report.
    And as our chair of the Agriculture Committee pointed out, 
I chair the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, and I would 
like to work with Chairman Bishop on this, as well with you, 
how we can better understand this problem. So if you could get 
to Chairman Bishop and I which staff person we should be 
working directly with, that would be greatly appreciated, sir.
    Secretary Vilsack. We will get that to you today.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    At the end of your tenure as Secretary of Agriculture, the 
U.S. Forest Service took action to protect the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area, our Nation's most visited wilderness area. And it 
is a priceless reserve of water, so clean you can drink it 
directly from its lakes and rivers.
    In December of 2016, our previous Forest Service Chief, 
Chief Tidwell, denied consent for renewal of two expired mining 
leases in the BWCA watershed, concluding--and I quote from 
him--that sulfide copper ore mining could cause, quote, 
``serious and irreparable harm to this unique, iconic, 
irreplaceable wilderness area,'' end of quote.
    In January 2017, the Forest Service applied for a mineral 
withdrawal from Federal lands within the Rainy River watershed, 
but the Trump administration canceled the mineral withdrawal 
study, renewed the leases without any scientific evidence to 
justify its actions, to show whether or not that water, in 
fact, could be protected.
    Now, I understand the Department of Agriculture, under your 
leadership, is reviewing those actions. If you are able to, 
would you share what steps the USDA will be taking under your 
leadership to address this issue and the threat of sulfide ore 
copper mining in the watershed?
    And, in general, could you comment on the importance of 
surface land managers, like the Forest Service, in retaining 
the right to review and deny consent for mineral leases on 
public lands, especially when it could impact our public 
waters, which are the future generations' drinking water?
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, very much aware of the 
challenge and the interest and the sensitivity of this 
particular issue that you have raised. Certainly aware of it in 
2015, 2016; aware of it in 2021.
    I had the opportunity to go to Minnesota at the request of 
former Vice President Walter Mondale, who has a very keen 
interest in this issue, and spoke to a group that obviously is 
very concerned about the Boundary Waters generally.
    What I can tell you is that we are indeed reviewing the 
Trump administration action, and we are also working with our 
sister agency, the Department of the Interior, to take a look 
at a variety of economic analyses that have been done and need 
to be done in connection with this particular area as we make 
decisions about what next steps are.
    I don't want to prejudge what those next steps are until we 
have had those conversations and completed that analysis, but 
very, very, very well-aware of the sensitivities, and we will 
do what we can.
    And understand and appreciate the uniqueness of that 
particular location. It is something that I am personally 
familiar with, because our younger son spent a lot of time up 
there in the Boundary Waters at Camp Widjiwagan when he was 
growing up. So it is an area that was important to our family.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you.
    Secretary Vilsack. I can assure you, we are going to take 
it very seriously.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We don't place a value on water. But we hear about all the 
value in minerals. And life does not exist without water.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Vilsack.
    Mr. Bishop. I recognize Mr. Newhouse from Washington.
    You now recognized.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Vilsack, it is great to see you again. I have to 
say that, during my time as secretary of agriculture for my 
State and then also as serving as a Member of Congress in your 
last term, your office has always been very responsive and 
great to work with. So congratulations to you on your second 
confirmation. And I hope you are settling into your new old 
office at USDA.
    Just a quick question to get us started. You may or may not 
know, earlier this year, I had the honor of being elected the 
chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, which is a group 
of about 70 Members of Congress located throughout the country. 
Some of our main priorities have to do with agriculture and 
conservation and forestry, all of those things that are 
important to our membership.
    And I just wanted to follow up on a written invitation that 
I sent to you and extend a personal invitation to come and meet 
with this group of Members at your earliest convenience. And I 
would hope that we could make that happen. Could we do that, 
sir?
    Secretary Vilsack. Yes. Happy to visit with those folks.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Secondly, as many other Members have done, I would also 
like to invite you to come to my State. As you know, central 
Washington, where I represent, is a very diverse agricultural 
region. Gosh, we grow everything, I always say, from A to Z. 
You have heard of Washington apples; certainly our cattle and 
dairy industry is very significant; wine grapes; many, many 
other kinds of fruit, cherries certainly; wheat is a big deal.
    And I know from your previous work at USDA as well as in 
the private sector, you understand--and I have heard you say--
farmers and ranchers are truly the original conservationists 
and are stewards of the land that they work.
    So I would appreciate your time, if you could, to meet with 
central Washington farmers, ranchers, to understand how growers 
continue to innovate on smart climate practices and see 
firsthand how a one-size-fits-all solution in the name of 
climate does not work for all of agriculture.
    It would be good, as you make further announcements along 
these lines, to please--and I know you will, but--solicit input 
from growers in program crops as well as specialty crops.
    But I want to touch on a couple things in my time. First of 
all, on trade. And thank you for your comments so far, your 
positive comments. You understand the importance of trade to 
our industry. And I appreciate your urging the Congress to 
begin working to reauthorize the TPA, the Trade Promotion 
Authority. Free, fair, and open export markets certainly are 
critical to the State of Washington's agricultural industry.
    I have to tell you, though, sir, many agricultural 
stakeholders are concerned at the tone President Biden has been 
taking on trade negotiations. Implying that domestic matters 
are more important than trade agreements has not previously 
been beneficial to U.S. workers.
    And I would just like to note that nearly 40 percent--40 
percent--of the jobs in my State, the State of Washington, are 
directly tied to trade.
    So my question is, what do you plan to do to move the White 
House forward on trade on behalf of U.S. agricultural 
stakeholders?
    Secretary Vilsack. Our job at USDA is to make sure that the 
U.S. Trade Representative's Office is fully aware and 
appreciates the importance of agriculture in those negotiations 
and in the implementation of agreements.
    I have already had conversations with the U.S. Trade 
Representative Ambassador, Ambassador Tai, on implementation of 
USMCA, on approaches to China, on issues relating to Japan and 
beef access. So we have had those conversations.
    I have also had opportunities to reach out to the State 
Department to make sure that they are fully aware of 
agriculture's interests in a variety of areas around the world 
as issues unfold and can have an impact on trade relationships.
    And, finally, I have spent a good deal of time in the first 
several months of my tenure here reaching out to ag ministers 
from all over the world, trying to develop a coalition of ag 
ministers committed to climate change and a coalition of ag 
ministers committed to a science-based and rules-based system, 
and have had positive conversations recently with folks, 
particularly in our hemisphere.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    I see my time has expired, but I do hope to have another 
opportunity. But I appreciate very much your meeting with us 
this morning, Mr. Secretary, and look forward to a continued 
productive working relationship.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to the chair of the 
MILCON-VA Subcommittee of our Appropriations Committee, Ms. 
Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And I would like to just take the 
opportunity on behalf of the subcommittee to extend our deepest 
condolences on her recent loss of her mother.
    We are delighted that you are with us today. And, at this 
time, I am happy to yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz for your 
questions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And 
thank you for your condolences and the condolences of so many 
of my colleagues.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome, and welcome back. We are thrilled 
to have you in the leadership role that you are in once again.
    I want to touch on a couple of things: first on food 
insecurity among Florida's Hispanic community, and then also on 
the invasive species problem we have, particularly in Florida, 
as well as Florida citrus.
    COVID has continued to exacerbate an already serious food 
insecurity problem nationwide but especially among the Hispanic 
and immigrant families who live in Florida. According to 
UnidosUS, Hispanic children in Florida are more likely to have 
experienced food insecurity during the pandemic. And by mid-
October, nearly 20 percent of Hispanic households with children 
reported that their household sometimes or often did not have 
enough food to eat in the past 7 days, compared to 11.6 percent 
of non-Hispanic White households that didn't have enough food.
    Federal nutrition programs like SNAP and P-EBT are critical 
to addressing food insecurity during COVID. But Hispanic 
children and families face multiple systemic and structural 
barriers to participation in food assistance programs, 
particularly limited language access services and inadequate 
community outreach about the program.
    So I would like to ask you, how can the USDA better target 
investments in Spanish-language and culturally relevant 
information as well as trusted, culturally competent, and 
community-based organizations in order to help reduce those 
longstanding disparities in food access among Hispanic and 
immigrant households?
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think I would just 
incorporate my answer into your question the way you have posed 
it. I mean, the reality is, we need to do a better job of 
working to communicate with folks in a way that they understand 
and in a way that they trust. We certainly did that when I was 
Secretary before. We got participation rates in SNAP to record 
levels.
    Sometimes we also have to work and make sure that the 
States are doing their job, because, at the end of the day, 
States administer this program. And so I think it is going to 
be important for us to take a look at where Florida is relative 
to their outreach and the works and efforts that they are, in 
terms of the resources we are providing to the State for 
outreach, for education, et cetera.
    So I think it is partly reaching out to the States, partly 
making sure that we are doing our job of making information 
available. And, frankly, part of it is also taking a look at 
the level of the benefit. Folks can be hungry even if they do 
get SNAP, because the benefit level, I think, needs to be 
examined. Certainly, we are appreciative of the fact that 
Congress has increased it. And we have put that into play, and 
that should be of some help to the families that are 
participating in the program today.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think it is so important that USDA 
make this a priority. It is so critical.
    And, thankfully, the Biden administration has reversed the 
public charge rule. So how is USDA ensuring that all eligible 
immigrant children and families who need access to food 
assistance are able to receive it?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, we reached out to Department of 
Homeland Security, encouraging that action and certainly 
applauding it, and making sure that our counterparts in the 
States are fully aware and appreciative of the fact that that 
change has taken place. Again, it is States that administer 
this program. We want to make sure that they have the right 
information and that they are applying the right set of rules 
and right set of lenses, if you will, to applications.
    You know, part of this is also, I think, taking a look at 
the application system itself and making sure that we are doing 
it in a way that is as easy as it can be, to make sure that 
people participate in the program. Sometimes our application 
processes can be confusing and difficult and sometimes 
cumbersome, which can oftentimes discourage people from 
participating.
    That is particularly true of seniors. And I am not sure in 
Hispanic communities whether seniors are participating at the 
rate they should, but oftentimes it is because of the 
complicated application process.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And the public charge rule, you 
know, obviously eliminated so many Hispanic and immigrant 
families. And so making sure that they know that they are once 
again eligible is really critical.
    I want to turn, in my final just more than a minute, to the 
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program, because that is 
vital for inspecting imported commodities that come in through 
Florida's ports so we can protect against invasive plant and 
animal pests.
    It is a user-fee-based, as you know, program, so the 
decline in international travel has affected the program's 
bottom line. The ``Coronabus''' provided more funding to 
address the user-fee shortfall. But as we put together the 
fiscal year 2022 appropriations bill, it is really vital for 
AQI to have the funds necessary to continue this critical work 
so we can keep invasive pests from devastating our agriculture 
industry. That is the number-two, you know, economic driver in 
the State of Florida. Citrus greening has been really, you 
know, intensifying as a result of that invasive species 
problem.
    So can you speak to the importance of the program and 
whether AQI has the funds necessary to continue operating 
effectively?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, it was certainly appreciated, the 
fact that Congress did provide the resources--I think it was 
over $600 million--to basically get that budget back in order.
    You are absolutely right; that is the first line of 
defense. And invasive species can be absolutely devastating. 
You have mentioned citrus greening. Certainly don't have to 
tell anybody from Florida or Texas or California or Arizona the 
concerns they have about the citrus industry generally. We have 
invested a lot of resources in that particular area. Over 110 
projects have been invested in on citrus greening alone--
millions and millions of dollars.
    So very high priority, very important, has to be adequately 
funded. And I think it is adequately funded so long as the fees 
are coming in. If the fees aren't coming in, then you need to 
supplement or provide additional resources.
    Hopefully, with trade getting back when we get to the other 
side of COVID internationally and we get some of the snags in 
trade taken care of, we should see those resources begin to 
fill back up again, and we shouldn't have as much of a threat 
or concern as we had during COVID.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My time has expired.
    Mr. Bishop. Your time has expired.
    At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Cuellar of 
Texas, a member of the Defense Subcommittee, for any questions 
that you might have, sir.
    You are now recognized, Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your 
leadership in this subcommittee.
    Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure seeing you again. I am so 
happy that you are back as the Ag Secretary.
    I have two questions for the record on quality loss in the 
WIC Plus program and school meal standards that I am going to 
go ahead and submit for the record. So if you can get back to 
me on that.
    Mr. Cuellar. But what I want to talk about is, how do we 
help kids from third-world conditions, literally millions of 
them--and I am not talking about Salvador or Guatemala, but I 
am talking about kids in the border, U.S. border, called 
colonias. They have many times no water, no sewage, no 
electricity, no streets. The educational system needs a lot. So 
I am talking about helping U.S. kids that are on our side in 
colonias.
    Your agency has a definition for colonias, as you know. And 
I certainly want to see if we can talk about--if you can 
designate somebody I could work with. Because the colonias, we 
are talking almost 2.5 million individuals that live in third-
world conditions. A hundred and forty-five colonias are in New 
Mexico; 114 colonias are in Arizona; 34 colonias are in 
California. And Texas, especially south Texas, where a lot of 
kids are coming in from Central America, we have 2,166 colonias 
in the State of Texas.
    I know that your StrikeForce 2.0 is something I want to 
work with. I want to also work with you on the 10-20-30, which 
is something that Clyburn and the committee have been working 
on.
    So I just want to see if you can assign somebody I can work 
with and the committee can work with, because I do intend to 
add fundings with the help of the Appropriations Committee 
members to address third-world conditions called colonias.
    Secretary Vilsack. The last time I was Secretary, we had a 
focus on the colonias as part of our StrikeForce 1.0. Certainly 
no reason not to continue that.
    Right now, our focus is on making sure there is safe and 
adequate water, drinking water, and waste disposal systems. A 
significant amount of money has been invested already by Rural 
Development in the colonias for wastewater--about a billion 
dollars for those projects and for hospitals and clinics and 
energy systems to childcare centers. Our budget does propose a 
specific increase in water infrastructure, which we think will 
help clean water in communities like the colonias.
    So, very much committed to this, Representative. And we 
will make sure that you have someone in the staff that is aware 
of what we are doing in the colonias so that you can work with 
them to assure yourself and your constituents that that is an 
area of concern and interest.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. I am sorry, 
I am running off to the floor right now, but I do want to say 
thank you. And I look forward to working with whoever you 
assign so we can talk about colonias. Thank you so much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
    At this time, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from 
New York, Ms. Grace Meng.
    Ms. Meng, you are now recognized for your questions.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Chairman Bishop.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. It is great 
to meet you again. I am so thrilled that you will be leading 
this agency and look forward to working with you in my first 
year on this subcommittee to advocate for hunger programs like 
SNAP and WIC, which help many Americans, including my 
vulnerable constituents in Queens.
    As you know, food insecurity has really skyrocketed during 
this pandemic. The lines are longer than I have ever seen in my 
lifetime, and many people are relying on food assistance. There 
has never been a more important time to try to make SNAP more 
flexible.
    And I am concerned, in particular, about the longstanding 
hot food exclusion of hot foods from SNAP. This policy, I 
believe, creates unnecessary obstacles for many who are 
experiencing homelessness, senior citizens, single parents, 
essential workers--which we saw a lot of this issue in New York 
during the early days of the pandemic. They were working 
overtime and didn't have time to go to a grocery store. And 
sometimes, at least in New York, there is not a grocery store 
nearby.
    I believe that this policy can't be justified from a 
nutrition standard, when an untoasted sandwich is eligible for 
purchase but a toasted sandwich is not.
    Many of my constituents are struggling to put food on the 
table and would really benefit from repealing this exclusion. 
For example, a single mom could benefit from buying a 
rotisserie chicken to use across several meals. A college 
student on SNAP who works to pay for school might benefit from 
a cup of soup from the local grocery store or deli. Those who 
are unhoused or are living in transitional housing might not 
even have access to a kitchen at all.
    I wanted to ask what your opinion and thoughts are on 
potential repeal of this hot food exclusion and of more 
expansive SNAP policies. And would you be supportive of 
Congress wholly eliminating the hot food exclusion?
    Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, I think it would be best 
for me to respond to give you, sort of, the principles that I 
am operating under with reference to the SNAP program.
    First and foremost, I want that benefit to be meaningful. 
And that is one of the reasons why we instituted a review of 
the Thrifty Food Plan, which is the foundation upon which that 
benefit is calculated, to determine whether or not it makes 
sense in today's world.
    Secondly, I want the ability of the SNAP program to be 
utilized by as many people as possible, which means taking a 
look at our application systems and making sure that we are not 
creating barriers to participation that are unnecessary.
    Third, I think we do need to learn from the recent 
experience in COVID as to how we might be able to make the SNAP 
program and availability of benefits modernized and more 
convenient. Now, that may very well address the issues that you 
are raising here. It may go into a variety of other directions 
relative to how we might incorporate restaurants into the 
system more fully than they are today. But I think it is worthy 
of us challenging ourselves to ask ourselves whether this 
program needs to be modernized in terms of how benefits are 
accessible.
    And, finally, of course, we want to make sure the program 
is operated with integrity.
    And those are the four principles that I am operating 
under. Those are the four directives that I have given to our 
team to work on. And I would hope that over the course of the 
time that I am Secretary that we will see progress in all four 
areas.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I know I don't have a lot of time left, but as a member of 
Mr. Clyburn's Rural Broadband Task Force, rural accessible 
broadband access has been something that we have prioritized 
and we have especially seen the importance of during this 
pandemic.
    I wanted to ask about your plans to expand broadband access 
in general but, also, how you might suggest--or any ideas you 
might have in relation to how Members could use potential 
community-funded projects or the infrastructure bill to help 
make this access more accessible and affordable.
    Secretary Vilsack. There are a number of issues relative to 
broadband, I think, but, first and foremost, at our department, 
USDA needs to work in better coordination with the FCC, with 
NTIA, with Commerce and other agencies that are engaged and 
involved in expanded broadband or the regulation of broadband 
to ensure that we are using every single dollar as effectively 
as possible to get as many people served as possible.
    We recently clarified and simplified the rules with 
reference to our ReConnect Program, which will, I think, go in 
effect next week. And we expect and anticipate that is going to 
expand significantly the number of communities that are 
available to apply for those resources. So the more resources 
we have in that program, as we have asked in this budget for 
additional resources, the more folks we can help.
    But we want to make sure the help we provide makes sense, 
so that means upload and download speeds that are adequate and 
sufficient to actually do the job that needs to be done. As I 
discussed with Representative Fortenberry, you know, this is 
about making sure that this broadband is actually usable. It is 
not enough to say you have broadband; it has to be higher-speed 
broadband.
    So those are some of the things we are doing relative to 
broadband expansion.
    It is about money. And the Jobs Plan that the President has 
put forward provides significant resources for this. I would 
strongly encourage Congress to take a very close look at that 
bill and that section of the bill.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng. I believe your time has 
expired.
    And let me thank the committee. I believe we have finished 
our first round. And we are about to begin a second round, Mr. 
Secretary, and I think that comes back to me.
    As you may be aware, Georgia is the number-one peanut-
producing State in the country, and my congressional district 
is the number-one congressional district that produces peanuts, 
and I am known as the peanut Congressman.
    The peanut industry brought back concerns about the EU non-
tariff trade barriers for peanuts to USDA's attention back in 
2018. Since that time, the peanut industry has had numerous 
USDA meetings, Zoom calls, and exchanged technical information 
with the EU through the AMS/FAS with no success. Since 2018, 
peanuts have lost $160 million in the EU market.
    The industry leadership believes that until the EU 
representatives and the U.S. peanut leaders meet, there is 
little hope of addressing this important issue for the peanut 
industry. Can you check with your staff on how we can move this 
issue forward for the peanut industry and possibly include a 
meeting with EU representatives and the U.S. peanut industry?
    And let me just ask, go on to my second question, so that 
you can answer that when you finish that. It has to do with ERS 
and NIFA.
    The previous administration devastated USDA's research 
capacity at ERS and the National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture by proposing to move large numbers of staff from 
the national capital region to Kansas City, Missouri. Many of 
those researchers did not want to relocate, and, according to 
an OIG review from 2017 to 2020, ERS and NIFA experienced 
agency-wide staffing losses in excess of 40 percent.
    What are your plans to restore these agencies' research 
capacity? And can you speak to where the administration is in 
nominating someone for the position of Under Secretary for 
Research, Education, and Economics?
    Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we will do everything we 
possibly can to communicate with our EU friends the concerns of 
the peanut industry and we will obviously facilitate any 
conversation or meeting that is necessary.
    But I would say that it is very, very important for not 
just the USDA to weigh in on this issue, but for USTR to also 
weigh in on this issue. They are the ones that, at the end of 
the day, are negotiating with our friends in the EU.
    It is a difficult circumstance. We have a very difficult 
relationship with the EU. I have had conversations with the EU 
Commissioner recently and expressed concerns about that 
relationship. We will continue to knock on that door. But I 
think it is important for us to also have USTR also knocking on 
that door.
    In terms of NIFA, about 221 positions have been filled at 
NIFA. There are probably roughly a hundred positions or so that 
need to be filled. There is an aggressive effort to fill those 
positions and to do so in a way that expands significantly the 
diversity within those folks who are working at NIFA. We are 
going to keep an eye on it as the President has instructed us 
to do so. And certainly it is in our best interest to make sure 
we have as diverse and inclusive a workforce as possible.
    And I am confident that we are going to get many of those 
positions filled. Some of them will be filled in Kansas City 
and some of them will be filled in the Washington, D.C., area.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Part of the advantage of returning to your old job is being 
able to hit the ground running, but you need staff to help 
manage the vast and the wide-ranging portfolio at USDA. We have 
seen nominations announced for the Deputy Secretary and General 
Counsel positions. I am particularly interested in the Under 
Secretary for Rural Development and Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights positions.
    When will the administration announce nominations for your 
subcabinet? And have you recommended any names to the White 
House?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are working--and I should have 
responded to your request about our Under Secretary as well--we 
are working with the Presidential Personnel Office to identify 
candidates and to essentially create a list of potential 
nominees and then work through the process of ensuring that 
those folks are properly vetted before we propose their names.
    I would anticipate and expect in the very near future you 
will begin to see a series of nominations for the Under 
Secretary positions and some of the other key positions that 
are not yet filled. Trust me, Mr. Chairman, I am just as 
anxious as you are to have more help and more staff. It is not 
easy to operate this rather vast department without all hands 
on deck.
    So we are working as expeditiously as possible to get those 
positions filled. And hopefully the Senate will establish a 
hearing date in the near future for the General Counsel and 
hopefully we have a Senate vote on the Deputy in the very near 
future.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    My time has expired, and I am happy to yield back to Mr. 
Fortenberry for an additional round of questions.
    Mr. Fortenberry, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I think it 
has been a thoughtful and thorough hearing thus far.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to return to the earlier question I 
raised about synthetic beef. I think we have enough time to 
flush it out, so to speak, thoroughly.
    I really think it is important that we work hard to dispel 
the myth that American livestock production is a significant 
contributor to climate change.
    When we look at the emissions charts, America's livestock 
producers in comparison to the world are at the bottom. And 
that is because we excel in animal husbandry and innovation 
techniques.
    Years ago there was a gentleman hog farmer in my district--
and I know, Mr. Secretary, that you have probably been caught 
behind a hog truck and there is a lot of power and energy 
there. Anyway, one of my hog farmers decided to try to take 
that energy and make it useful in a creative way, and created 
one of the early methane digestion systems.
    So, again, American livestock producers are in the front 
end of both animal husbandry as well as innovation, and I would 
hate to see us penalized as we try to appropriately address the 
issue of methane in the atmosphere, which is a pass-through gas 
and, therefore, less impactful on climate change. But also, in 
comparison to the rest of the world, how much better we do 
because, again, of the value of stewardship as well as 
innovation.
    I have been in meetings with Bill Gates. He made that 
comment. I respect Bill Gates' attempt to compel the world's 
wealthiest to be more socially responsible. But in this one, 
again, discounting the nutritional aspects, the limitation--
limited impacts this would have on our environmental security, 
as well as the disruptions of an important economic resource 
for not only ourselves in America, I think it is important to 
help dispel that myth.
    Secondly, let me return also to the what I raised earlier 
regarding the blue ribbon panel. The OIG recently discovered 
that the Department does not have a single repository of all of 
its research.
    So as we engage in the blue ribbon panel thinking about, 
again, a 21st century architecture of higher education that 
modernizes research, makes it relevant for both regeneration 
and return to the farmer, as well as value adds for the 
students, I think having an understanding of what the research 
is going on at the Department is a first stop, just basic card 
catalog.
    So that is one question I would like to raise for you.
    And then finally, the third question would be, can you give 
an update on USDA's role regarding new technologies for 
genetically engineered farm animals? Has the USDA studied the 
ethical and moral questions surrounding the genetic 
modification of animals, obviously a place where we have to 
tread very cautiously?
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, on the last question, I 
think there are three components of this.
    First, I think you are right, we have to make sure we lift 
up the messaging in terms of American agriculture and the 
protein production processes that are in place here.
    American agriculture is responsible for about 9 percent or 
so of emissions totally in this country. Worldwide agriculture 
is responsible for 14, 15 percent. So clearly we are doing a 
better job across the board.
    I think there are technologies that will help us reduce 
methane. There are feed additives that could potentially reduce 
it.
    I would say that what we have to do is have a regulatory 
system that allows those feed additives to get into our feed 
quicker. Basically, what we have today is a situation where it 
is treated as if it was a pharmaceutical product, which creates 
a tremendous lag time in getting that technology into the 
field.
    Our competitors are not waiting. Europe and New Zealand and 
others are utilizing these feed additives to reduce their 
methane. We need to be on top of that.
    And then I think there is technology for the conversion of 
methane and the utilization of technology to convert manure, 
all of which I think can significantly accelerate our efforts 
and need to be.
    On the depository, this is surprising to me because when I 
left USDA we were trying to create a way in which we could have 
public access to all the research that we had publicly funded 
over a period of time to accelerate the utilization of that 
research in new developments. So I am not sure what has 
happened between the time I left and now, but I am certainly 
going to look into it. I would agree with you it makes sense to 
have a repository.
    On genetically engineering farm animals, frankly, I will 
need to do some checking on that. It is clear we should be 
asking those questions if we haven't. I want to make sure if we 
have asked them, we have asked them in the right way. I want to 
find out what information we have. I don't know the answer to 
that question today as I sit, but I appreciate you bringing it 
up.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Great. Thank you so much again.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    At this time, I would like to recognize the chair of our 
full committee, Ms. Rosa DeLauro, for any additional questions 
she may have.
    Chair, the floor is now yours.
    The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to just ask two questions. One is about 
foodborne illness from meat and poultry, Mr. Secretary, and the 
USDA has failed to make any progress on reducing illnesses from 
Salmonella and Campylobacter. It is about three million 
illnesses every year because of the resistance to one or more 
of the antibiotics.
    Despite the Department's work on performance standards for 
the bacteria in the poultry slaughterhouses, the rate of 
laboratory diagnosed infections among people was actually 
higher at the close of the decade than it had been at the 
start.
    So the agency has been criticized by both consumer groups 
and industry for having outdated performance standards that are 
not based on risks posed by the bacteria. And consumer groups 
and victims of foodborne illness have submitted two petitions 
to the agency asking for enforceable standards.
    So the first question is, what do you intend to do to 
respond to the petitions, create updated enforceable standards, 
to ensure food safety and to protect consumers?
    And the last question is about waivers for school meals. 
And I applaud your dedication to child nutrition. And last 
month the Department extended several nationwide waivers that 
will ensure children receive healthy meals through the summer 
when schools are out of session. We have heard the Department 
is considering the extension of certain waivers for school 
meals for the fall.
    School districts across the country need to prepare for the 
fall, providing them with this continuity, if you will. Can you 
explain the Department's current thinking and when you plan to 
announce a decision?
    Secretary Vilsack. On the petitions, Madam Chair, I would 
ask that you give me an opportunity to be better versed on the 
nature of those petitions. But I would say as a general 
proposition, we should do everything we can to ensure the 
safety of the food that we are providing to Americans. And if 
there are concerns, if there are issues where we are taking a 
step back instead of a step forward, we need to take a step 
forward.
    And certainly when I was Secretary before we made an effort 
to try to take a step forward. If that wasn't sufficient, 
wasn't adequate, then I think we need to obviously revisit what 
can be done and should be done to ensure the safety of food 
that is being provided to Americans. That is a sacred 
responsibility we have and we need to take it seriously.
    On the waivers, I would expect and anticipate that we are 
going to have information on that in the very, very near 
future. We certainly understand that schools are waiting to 
know precisely how the system is going to work during the next 
school year and we want to give them plenty of time to make 
sure that they have things in order.
    I would say that there are two issues here. One is the 
issue of, you know, are we going to continue to have universal 
free meals. My feeling is I want to make sure that we feed as 
many kids as possible and we want to feed them nutritious food. 
That is my attitude. And that hopefully can be expressed in 
policies that we adopt.
    Secondly, there is the issue of the nutrition standards. 
And I think it is important for us to work collaboratively with 
school districts in a way that allows them the resources. What 
I said earlier about funding your priorities. If nutrition is a 
priority, then we need to provide the resources for school 
districts to provide healthy, nutritious meals.
    It ought to be a priority. And, frankly, I think it is 
cost-effective if we do this because over time we are going to 
spend a heck of a lot less on diabetes, for example.
    The Chair. Just a quick comment on the standards. Look, I 
look forward to working with you on this. We need final product 
standards for the most dangerous types of bacteria and 
requiring the large poultry operations to minimize foodborne 
risks in their production practices. But, again, we will have 
further conversations about that.
    On the issue of agriculture research and climate change, if 
I might. What ways do you think that USDA, the agencies and 
resources be utilized to identify agricultural practices that 
are needed to mitigate climate change, but incentivize their 
use and adoption among farmers?
    Secretary Vilsack. A couple things.
    First, we need to make sure we have proper measurement and 
certification programs so that we can create market 
opportunities for investment in those practices.
    Secondly, we need to make sure we are targeting and 
focusing the conservation resources that you all provide us in 
a way that advances those climate-smart agricultural practices. 
We have 45 different practices that we know will have a 
positive impact on soil health, have a positive impact on water 
quality, will have a positive impact on carbon sequestration. 
We ought to be helping to fund those 45 practices. Farmers are 
anxious to do it.
    But this is really important, this is maybe the most 
important thing I am going to say today: 89.6 percent of farms 
in this country today, 89.6 percent of the farms in this 
country today, the majority of income for the farm families 
operating those farms does not come from the farm.
    So when we basically say, ``Hey, farmer, you need to do X, 
Y, and Z,'' they are not making enough money, most of them, to 
do that.
    So that is why it is important for us as a Department to 
focus on new markets and more markets and better markets so 
that we create greater profitability.
    So if we are anxious for climate, then let's invest in 
those practices, make it easy for farmers to do so. Let's 
create markets that reward them for doing this and pay them for 
doing this and create, in essence, a new revenue stream for 
them so that we don't have 89.6 percent of our farms not 
producing enough money so that the majority of what is earned 
comes from that farm as opposed to off-farm income.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
    The Chair. My time is expired, and I look forward to 
working with you, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. I believe Dr. Harris is next if he is ready.
    Dr. Harris, you are recognized for any additional questions 
that you may have.
    Not hearing from Dr. Harris, let me recognize Mr. Valadao 
for any additional questions.
    Mr. Valadao. Appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman, again.
    And, Mr. Secretary, as you know, agriculture exports from 
the West Coast--before I continue on, I was in the middle of 
another call as well, so hopefully this wasn't addressed, but 
this is an important topic. And I know that the export issue 
was brought up a little bit.
    But as you know, agriculture exports from the West, 
especially from California, are facing unfair treatment due to 
the lack of export containers and lack of willingness for 
shipping carriers to move our goods, but China is paying a 
higher fee to have the containers returned to China completely 
empty, leaving U.S. exports behind. The Federal Maritime 
Commission currently has an investigation underway on this 
serious issue.
    These exporters need all the help they can get right now. 
Coupled with excessive shipping costs, attention to merge fees 
(ph), exporters are struggling to meet contract deadlines in 
our critical Asian markets, jeopardizing important trade 
relationships.
    Will you commit to working with me, this committee, the 
White House, Department of Transportation, and the Federal 
Maritime Commission to find both an immediate solution to free 
up port congestion and a long-term fix to ensure that these 
delays and exorbitant costs are avoided in the future?
    Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, we are already working 
collaboratively and certainly have encouraged the Maritime 
Commission to take action immediately, which they have the 
jurisdiction and capacity to do to begin to alleviate this very 
serious problem. So we are very concerned about it, as you are. 
Happy to work with you on it.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that.
    And then, Secretary Vilsack, you have been a leader on 
speaking out about USMCA enforcement, however, we have yet to 
hear from the Biden administration on enforcement of Canadian 
commitments on dairy, as well as Mexico's numerous roadblocks 
directed against our agriculture exports. There has been 
proliferation of Mexican regulations and product standards that 
serve little purpose other than to impede trade.
    Will you commit to work with interagency partners and the 
White House to ramp up engagement with Mexico to work out these 
differences so we can continue to trade our vital products?
    Secretary Vilsack. Have visited with the Mexican Ag 
Minister about these specific issues. It was the second call 
that I made. The first call was to the Canadian Minister to 
raise issues on USMCA. And certainly have indicated a desire 
and opportunity to work with USTR to make sure that the 
provisions of the USMCA that provide for enforcement, provide 
for collaboration and for consultation are utilized when and if 
it turns out that our trading partners aren't living up to the 
letter or spirit of the agreement.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to put the rest of my questions in 
for the record, and I appreciate the time.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you again for testifying.
    I am done. So I yield back the rest of my time.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    Ms. Pingree, you are now recognized for an additional 
round.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to follow up on some report language 
I secured last year encouraging NRCS to establish a composting 
conservation practice in CSP and EQIP, something that has been 
a focus of mine for a while. And I know that NRCS is also 
moving forward this year with an interim conservation practice 
on soil carbon amendments, including compost and biochar.
    Can you give me an update on the efforts at NRCS to include 
the use of compost in conservation programs?
    Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, if you will allow me to 
ask my staff to get back to you on that issue. I don't know the 
specifics of it. I would be surprised that we are not utilizing 
every opportunity to create ways in which we can provide help 
and assistance to farmers and that may be one of them.
    But I don't know the answer to your question and I wouldn't 
even want to try to fake it, so----
    Ms. Pingree. That is okay. You have put in 2 long hours 
with us and I didn't expect you to be on top of everything, 
although compost is an important topic.
    So let's go to a tough one, PFAS. Unfortunately, my State 
of Maine has been a little bit ahead of the curve when it comes 
to identifying and responding to the emerging threat of PFAS 
contamination. Over the past few years, a small number of dairy 
farms in Maine have identified PFAS contamination in the milk.
    Unfortunately, this difficult situation is even more 
challenging because of a lack of resources available to help 
affected producers. The Dairy Indemnity Payment Program gives a 
little bit of short-term relief, but is not sufficient to 
address the full scope of the problem.
    Maine might be ahead of the curve, but I know we are not 
the only State where this is an issue or will be an issue. So 
can you tell me how you are approaching the issue of PFAS 
contamination across the Department from research to farm 
support to food safety? And what further assistance can the 
USDA offer in terms of longer-term programmatic and financial 
support for farms that are affected by PFAS contamination?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are taking a look at the Dairy 
Indemnification Program to see whether or not it actually is 
structured in a way that is meaningful.
    I think what we think, it probably makes sense to provide 
compensation over a short period of time for milk that is 
impacted and affected. But perhaps if there is a long-term, 
more permanent situation that you are dealing with, it may be 
better for the farmer to provide assistance in terms of 
reimbursing for the stock, the dairy cows that may be impacted 
by this.
    So we are looking at ways in which we can better support 
our dairy farmers who are confronted with this.
    Secondly, you mentioned across the country, and certainly 
this is a big issue in New Mexico, and it has something to do 
with the Defense Department. So we are obviously reaching out 
to the Defense Department to encourage them to also understand 
the responsibilities that they may have in this space as well.
    I don't know what research we are doing on this, but I will 
be happy to ask our team if there are research projects and 
certainly let you know about them. And if there are not, 
whether or not they would consider the possibility of such a 
project in Maine.
    Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you for that. I know I am 
fortunate enough to sit on the MilCon Committee, and Chair 
Wasserman Schultz recently held a hearing on PFAS where we got 
to hear from the Defense Department. And my understanding is 
that there has not been sufficient analysis of where the 
contamination is.
    So I do think, like the New Mexico situation, there is 
probably a great deal of contamination near military bases and 
airstrips. And I do hope that USDA can work closely with the 
Department of Defense to push them to take responsibility for 
that and the cleanup.
    And I will just also reinforce that I appreciate the 
support and the compensation for milk, but I think your second 
suggestion, that for many farmers this level of contamination--
PFAS is a forever chemical. It is often in the land for a 
variety of reasons. Can't really be effectively remediated or 
removed or at least we don't know how to now. And for some 
farmers it is complete loss of their stock and all of their 
livelihood.
    So I will look forward to staying in touch with the 
Department on that and how we are going to deal with that 
really tragic situation many farmers find themselves in--or 
some farmers find themselves in and possibly more will in the 
future. And there is really no way to get back your livelihood 
in some situations.
    So I yield back the rest of my time. But thank you for 
being willing to look into that. Thanks so much.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
    Mr. Newhouse, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the 
second round.
    Mr. Secretary, my State, particularly in central 
Washington, we are a significant producer of organic 
agriculture. And I just wanted to kind of add on to the thought 
process of Ms. Pingree and her questioning with the organic 
rulemaking and standard.
    USDA has missed statutory deadlines to finalize the origin 
of livestock rule, a rule that is actually a legacy item under 
your previous tenure. And this is part of a troubling pattern.
    Over the last 12 years, over 20 recommendations to update 
the organic standards have passed the National Organic 
Standards Board and USDA has not implemented a single one of 
those.
    Congress has increased the National Organic Program's 
budget by at least 50 percent in the last 5 years and they now 
have more than 65 full-time staff.
    And so my question is, do you have any information on why 
these standards continue to remain unresolved?
    Secretary Vilsack. I think one of the things we have to do, 
Representative, is to lift up the Organic Program within USDA. 
We began that process in the Obama administration and I am 
committed to doing that in this administration. It is a value-
added opportunity. It is one of those more, better, and new 
markets opportunities. I think there are a number of ways in 
which we can provide help and assistance.
    You know, on the livestock rule, obviously, as time goes by 
things change. We changed several aspects of that rule and want 
to make sure that we have additional comment to make sure we 
are on the strongest legal basis and ground. But I think what 
you are going to see, some of those rules coming out in the not 
too distance future. Others we may have to start from scratch, 
as I indicated earlier. I don't know specifically.
    To be honest with you, your question kind of surprised me, 
because we did put a lot of emphasis on organic when I was 
Secretary before, so I am surprised that we didn't improve any 
of those standards.
    I would like to go back and ask the question why that is 
so, because I would have thought it was given the amount of 
attention and effort that we had in expanding crop insurance 
protection for organic and trying to protect the organic brand 
and all the other things that we did.
    So I am not sure why we haven't followed through on those 
standards. We should have.
    Mr. Newhouse. I know you have been a strong supporter of 
the organics program overall. And so, yeah, would love to 
continue that conversation if you have a chance to look at 
that.
    But, again, appreciate you being with us today, and look 
forward to continuing a strong working relationship.
    And I will yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    I would like to now recognize Mr. Pocan from Wisconsin.
    You are now recognized for an additional round.
    Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, sorry to do that speed round last time. I 
didn't know we were going to have a second round. That was the 
most impressive I have seen any secretary talk concisively on 
the answers, I just thought I would let you know, from eight 
and a half years here.
    Let me just make a couple comments. Broadband. I helped 
form a bipartisan Rural Broadband Caucus. Anything we can do to 
help work with you on this, we would be interested.
    Just 3 years ago I got broadband. We have been out there 
for 7, you know, up to that point. I got the deal, the half 
price sale at $300 a month for 40 measured gigs and an hour on 
Netflix is 2.5 gigs. So often I would call my husband at the 
end of the month and tell him to quit watching TV when I was 
out here. At $15 a gig beyond that, it gets a little pricey. So 
certainly understand and we want to work with you on that.
    I completely agree with the full chair of the committee 
around the line speeds and the safety for the workers in the 
meatpacking industry. Not just what we saw happen in the last 
administration, but also with COVID, really illustrates that 
problem.
    Completely agree on the SNAP benefits. You know, my 
freshman term we had a challenge, some of us, for a week lived 
on the 31.50 that we got. My office said I was an ornery SOB. A 
bag of oranges was 6 bucks, right, I mean, and you couldn't eat 
very healthy. I had ramen noodles and things like that to 
supplement it out.
    The fact that we are basically flat leveled in real dollars 
means we have got to decrease the level of what people can 
spend money on. Completely agree if we could get that benefit 
up for people, best program to keep kids out of poverty. Would 
love to see that. I want to get that out just because, again, I 
really appreciated your answers.
    My question, this is going to involve some of your other 
expertise too, is around dairy farms. You know, we lost in 
2019, 818 family dairy farms in Wisconsin. Last year it was 
only one per day, over 350 farms in Wisconsin. This is tough.
    And I am just wondering, what is your kind of vision for 
the future, specifically the dairy industry? And what can we be 
doing on this side for the family farmers? Because, you know, 
these people, many of them have had farms for generations. They 
are Democrats; they are Republicans, most of them are likely 
Independents, as I talk to them. This is a big concern.
    Secretary Vilsack. Let me start with the traditional answer 
that you would get from a Secretary of Agriculture, the 
importance of exports. Obviously, it is important and necessary 
for us to continue to expand the sale of dairy products 
worldwide so that we can stabilize the price and make sure that 
farmers can stay in business.
    I think it is also important that we create opportunities 
for those dairy farmers to have local and regional markets, the 
ability to negotiate their own price, if you will, in terms of 
sales to schools, sales to universities, sales to any 
institutional purchaser.
    And so supporting local and regional food systems. We just 
announced over $300 million of support and help to local and 
regional food systems just yesterday as part of our outreach 
effort to try to create that alternative market.
    And we can provide the ability of those dairy farmers to 
also add value to their products. Maybe it is a small cheese 
shop. Maybe it is an ice cream parlor. There are ways in which 
they can become processors as well as producers.
    And then I will tell you climate has a tremendous 
opportunity for dairy. If you are essentially basically paying 
dairy for reducing methane or capturing methane and converting 
it into electricity and fuel, that is a new product.
    If you are creating opportunities for that manure that is 
being produced on a dairy operation to become an ingredient 
instead of going to the landfill or being overapplied on land 
and causing some issues, if it can be an ingredient in a new 
material, a new chemical, a new fabric, a new fiber, a new fuel 
source, we need to be doing much more of that. It creates 
another revenue stream for farmers.
    And then, frankly, you know, there is a lot of competition 
out there for consumption. And the dairy industry, I think, 
recognizes that and they are now looking for ways in which the 
ingredients within dairy can be segregated and utilized in a 
very high value way.
    Whey protein, huge protein source. Can we convert more of 
that into more nutritious sport drinks and snacks and things of 
that nature that creates additional market opportunities for 
the dairy products?
    So it is a combination of all of those things in order to 
provide the most effective way of keeping as many people on the 
farm as possible.
    Mr. Pocan. We are also seeing some of the younger farmers 
go into organic and that has been successful for some. And also 
they are getting together and working through a single 
processor to make different types of cheese and, again, trying 
to address some of what you are talking about.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
    I think I would normally recognize Dr. Harris, but it is my 
understanding that Dr. Harris has no more questions. And if 
that is correct, I will then yield to Ms. Underwood for an 
additional round of questions.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I wanted to follow up on WIC. Are you 
considering other actions beyond outreach to improve WIC, 
particularly with a specific focus on improving maternal health 
and addressing the Black maternal mortality crisis?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are going to look. The resources that 
have been provided in the Rescue Plan, I think, create 
opportunities for us to take a look at ways in which we can 
expand the impact of WIC.
    Let me give you an example of one kind of partnership that 
might be available that we need to be thinking about.
    There is an organization called Count the Kicks. It is an 
organization that basically encourages moms to count the kicks 
periodically, and if the kicks get below a certain number then 
it may indicate that there are some problems. And in minority 
populations, there are higher rates of stillborn babies than in 
White population.
    And so this is an opportunity potentially for a 
collaboration between an organization like that and WIC to 
basically co-promote each other so that you are counting the 
kicks and having healthier babies being born and also providing 
those moms and those babies and children with more nutritious 
food at the beginning of life.
    So I think there are ways in which we can look for those 
kinds of partnerships with organizations that have a mutual 
interest, if you will.
    And I am certainly interested in your thoughts about how 
best to do that, ideas that you have from your congressional 
district that could be incorporated in that effort to try to 
find creative ways to make WIC more attractive, to make WIC 
more effective, to make WIC participation at higher rates.
    Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir. I appreciate that.
    I do just want to note that the stillborn and infant 
mortality and infant health issues are incredibly important, 
but so is what is happening to our moms and the fact that 
mothers continue to die at three to four times--Black mothers 
continue to die at the rate of three to four times than the 
White moms in our country in terms of maternal mortality.
    And I think that the WIC program is a unique tool that we 
have, particularly to extend WIC coverage in the breast feeding 
and postpartum period.
    And so we will certainly be following up with you on that. 
We do have legislation to that end, the Social Determinants for 
Moms Act. And I think that this is certainly part of an equity 
agenda that the Biden-Harris administration would support. And 
it is Black Maternal Health Week, so I had to make sure to 
cover that.
    Now, I want to change, shift a little bit and bring your 
attention to a bipartisan bill that I introduced with 
Congressman Gallagher this week, the Farmers Fighting Climate 
Change Act. And this bill would support producers on the front 
lines of the climate crisis by establishing climate change 
mitigation bundles within the Conservation Stewardship Program.
    I believe my bill fits in well with your ambitious climate 
change agenda at USDA, and I look forward to working with you 
to advance solutions that are fair to our farmers and have real 
impact on the climate crisis.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are now recognized for an 
additional round.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I wanted to revisit Florida citrus and ask 
you about the Citrus Health Response Program, or CHRP, and the 
HLB MAC program, which are two critical programs in the fight 
to protect the U.S. citrus crop from disease.
    Can you give us a status update on the work of these two 
important programs? And is there anything more you need from 
Congress for these programs to be successful?
    We talked about citrus screening disease and other diseases 
that are continuing to ravage citrus crops in Florida and 
beyond, and I really want to see how we can continue to ramp up 
our efforts.
    Secretary Vilsack. We have obviously worked collaboratively 
with State governments and local governments and other Federal 
agencies on the issue of citrus greening, in particular. As I 
said earlier, we have had over a hundred projects that have 
been funded through the MAC, and obviously some of them were 
beginning to see some indication of success. We have had an 
attract-and-kill device that has been particularly effective in 
trying to reduce the risk of the psyllid that causes citrus 
greening.
    We obviously have to continue that effort and provide 
resources for that effort until we finally figure out how to 
end this scourge on the citrus crop.
    I think we also have to take a look at--we have additional 
funding in the specialty crop pest and appropriated line item, 
and obviously additional resources will make a difference in 
terms of detection and in terms of management and therapeutics. 
All of that, I think. And I think there is a continued research 
effort that is also underway.
    So a variety of things that we are trying to do in an 
effort to try to respond to this issue. But it is a tough one.
    Part of what is interesting about coming back to the job 
that I had before is the expectation you are going to come back 
to new problems. But the reality is you come back to a lot of 
the old problems, and this is one of them, tragically.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. Feels a little like Groundhog 
Day on this issue.
    I also want to touch on the Animal Welfare Act and how the 
USDA implemented it and enforces it through the animal care 
program in the last administration.
    In 2017, I think you know, the USDA abruptly pulled all of 
its animal welfare inspection reports and enforcement records 
from its searchable public website. Those records were only 
restored after we included language in the fiscal year 2020 
approps bill to direct the agency to restore public access.
    But there are still ongoing problems with the animal care 
program. For example, the agency completely stopped conducting 
inspections at licensed facilities in 2020, but they continued 
to provide licenses to new businesses without ever having 
visited the facilities. And they also appeared to substitute 
virtual inspections without providing any detail to Congress 
and to the public about how they be conducted.
    Can you tell us how you and the USDA are going to examine 
what is happening in the animal care program so we can ensure 
that this part of the agency operates transparently and 
effectively?
    And really, I want to just underscore that the agency needs 
to be able to carry out its role of ensuring animal welfare 
standards are met. And since the last administration [audio 
malfunction] Capacity to do that, double down and make sure 
that we can enforce that law.
    Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, we had a glitch in 
technology. I think I got the gist of your question and I will 
try to respond to it.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    Secretary Vilsack. First and foremost, I want to take a 
look at--you mentioned virtual inspections. I want to take a 
look at how many of the 5,620 inspections that took place in 
the last fiscal year were actually virtual and why, to make 
sure that those are, indeed, inspections as opposed to just 
simply a number.
    And I think there is a Supreme Court decision that has 
complicated the efforts at the Department in terms of 
enforcement and assessing penalties. I want to make sure I 
understand fully and completely the impact of that Supreme 
Court decision and how we are going to respond to it to make 
sure that once we do an inspection, once we find a problem, 
that we can actually do something about it, and how we can do 
it in a way that is not subject to question.
    This is an important area and it is one that--sometimes 
people take a look at the large programs at USDA. In the scheme 
of things, in terms of projects, it is a smaller program, but 
it has profound impact. And we will take animal welfare very 
seriously in this administration.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Let me just say to the Secretary, we so gratefully 
appreciate your being so generous with your time. I think we 
are getting toward the end, but I do have one additional 
question I would like to pose to you. It is regarding the 
Equity Commission.
    Last month you said that you were in the process of 
establishing an Equity Commission at USDA. We are all familiar 
with USDA's troubled history with minority farmers, especially 
Black farmers.
    Can you tell us a little more about the Equity Commission 
and what you hope it will accomplish? And what can you do in 
the short-term and over the next few years to address this very 
longstanding problem?
    You mentioned in an interview how foreign subsidies are 
partly to blame for the disparities. Do you plan on looking 
broadly at programs and their impacts on equity in advance of 
the next farm bill?
    And, of course, the recently passed American Rescue Plan 
included $5 billion to assist socially disadvantaged farmers 
and ranchers.
    Can you give us an update on where you are in the 
implementation, who will get it, when they will get it, how 
will you go about allocating the funding? And will you allow 
for any input and collaboration in the establishment of the 
commission?
    Secretary Vilsack. I appreciate the question. And we have 
been incredibly busy with limited staff trying to address as 
quickly as possible the provisions of the American Rescue Plan 
that relate to socially disadvantaged producers and Black 
farmers.
    As you know, we have for the first time ever in the 
Department a senior equity advisor, Dr. Dewayne Goldmon. He and 
the team at the Farm Service Agency are working diligently on 
the debt relief effort.
    There are two classifications of debtors. There are those 
who have direct loans with the USDA. There are those who have 
guaranteed loans.
    On the guaranteed side, one of the first things we did was 
to advise the banks not to take any action, adverse actions 
against producers who might have been delinquent or who might 
have been subject to foreclosure and indicated that if they 
were to take such action, USDA would enforce its capacity to 
take the loan back. And that would prevent any additional 
foreclosures, any additional evictions, if you will.
    We are now in the process of accumulating from those 
guaranteed lenders information concerning the amount of 
prepayment penalties and other costs that might be associated 
so that we can accurately calculate the actual debt that is to 
be forgiven, which will have an impact on the 20 percent, as 
you know, Mr. Chairman, that goes to farmers to help assist 
them with the tax issues.
    We want to make sure that we do everything we can to do two 
things. One, to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks. 
We have, I think, a fairly good list and a fairly good idea of 
how many people have direct loans and guaranteed loans, but 
that doesn't mean that it is infallible or that it is going to 
be perfect.
    So we are going to align ourselves with community-building 
organizations in an effort to make sure that they are helping 
us identify anyone who might be eligible for this effort, for 
this relief, to make sure that when we provide the relief that 
it is as comprehensive as possible.
    Secondly, when we provide the relief, there are tax 
consequences. There are Federal tax consequences, there may be 
State tax consequences. That is why the 20 percent was added.
    And I might add that it is important for us to make sure 
that people are aware of that and that they receive the kind of 
technical advice necessary, especially if they are farmers, to 
be able to avoid paying any more tax than they absolutely have 
to.
    There is a 3-year averaging program that is available to 
farmers that allows you to average your income over a 3-year 
period. So if you have a large sum of money in one year but not 
much income in the other 2 years, you can spread that large 
amount of money over that 3-year period, lowering your tax 
burden and hopefully falling within or close to the 20 percent 
that is being provided.
    So we want to make sure that those who receive this help 
and assistance are aware of that, aware of the tax challenge 
that they may face and strategies for dealing with it. So we 
are trying to align ourselves and will align ourselves with 
organizations that provide information to folks who participate 
in this program.
    So I can assure you that we are moving expeditiously on 
this. Our goal is to try to get these debts relieved as quickly 
as possible. Again, we have a pretty good handle on how many 
there are. We are now in the process of beginning to figure out 
where we do the outreach to community-building organizations, 
how we send out information to those who will participate in 
this program so that they fully understand how it is going to 
work. That is all going to happen in a very, very short period 
of time.
    The Equity Commission is a commission that we think has to 
be formed under FACA. So we will be going through that process, 
which will allow you and others to have input on nominations 
for that commission.
    We see this as an external, expert-led review of various 
programs at USDA starting with those that are customer facing, 
where we have had the most significant issues with reference to 
program complaints. We expect that commission to do an external 
review to identify systemic barriers and to make 
recommendations for how we might be able to improve our 
programs.
    While that is going on, the President has also signed an 
executive order requiring us to also do an internal review of 
our efforts, and that is also underway. Working groups have 
been established in every single area of USDA. Leads have been 
identified. Work is beginning on doing the internal equity 
review to make sure that we are also doing whatever we can do 
immediately to create a fair and more equitable USDA.
    And I might comment on the subsidy issue, Mr. Chairman. I 
think it is important for people to understand what this is 
really all about.
    This is about the cumulative effect of discrimination. If 
you were a Black farmer 20 years ago and you went into the FSA 
office, maybe you didn't get a loan or maybe you got the loan 
late, later than your White counterpart, or maybe you got a 
loan at an interest rate or charges that were higher. You 
couldn't plant your crop in a timely way. Your crop didn't 
produce as much as it might have produced for a White farmer 
who planted in a timely way because they got the full access of 
USDA programs.
    Over a period of time, those disparities allowed farmers 
who got the full advantage to expand their operation, to get 
the latest technology. The Black farmer didn't have that 
advantage.
    Now we have a situation where we have programs that 
essentially compensate farmers in times of need based on 
production. If your production is lower than your neighbors, 
you are going to get less.
    We saw this in COVID relief. It is important to note this. 
There are several studies that indicated that of the COVID 
relief that has already been paid out, anywhere from 95 to 99 
percent of it went to White farmers and somewhere between 1 and 
5 percent went to socially disadvantaged farmers.
    Of those who have identified, who have self-identified, we 
know that there is roughly 25 percent of farmers who self-
identified as either White or Black. Of that number, farmers, 
Black farmers, received $20 million of assistance; White 
farmers $5.5 billion of assistance.
    The gap grows wider. And so what we are trying to do with 
debt relief, what we are trying to do with the Equity 
Commission, what we are trying to do with the additional 
resources for market development and land access is to 
establish the opportunity for more farmers to stay on the land, 
for more farmers to get in the farming business so that we have 
great diversity within our farming population.
    I apologize for taking too long with that answer, Mr. 
Chairman, but it is a very important set of questions you have 
asked.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Dr. Harris did not get to ask a second round, and I suspect 
that he may have an interest on that question. So I will yield 
to Dr. Harris for any additional questions that he might have.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Know that I listened 
intently to that.
    My questions. One follow-up question on the estate tax 
issue is you didn't deal with the stepped-up basis, that that 
was one of the things that President Biden said that he planned 
to change in changing the estate tax. Obviously, stepped-up 
basis is very important for multigenerational farms.
    And the other thing is just to make certain that when the 
USDA does broadband initiatives that they are qualifying the 
contractors appropriately, because we need to get this work 
done as soon as possible and the last thing we need to do is to 
deal with contractors who may not be able to--who give you a 
good bid, but they are not able to deliver. I mean, we need to 
have a deliverable on that.
    So if you could address those two issues, stepped-up basis 
and the contracting for broadband.
    Secretary Vilsack. I will certainly make sure that--and I 
am sure the Treasury folks fully understand this issue of 
stepped-up basis, but we will make sure that they understand it 
in the context of the farming community.
    As a practical matter, the stepped-up basis matters 
intently if you have to sell the farm. Right? In other words, 
if I--my wife and I own a farm. The value has appreciated 
significantly over the period of time we have owned it. When we 
die, our sons basically get the farm. Under the current rules, 
they get a stepped-up basis. If they sold the farm the next 
day, they wouldn't pay any tax. But if they keep the farm, the 
stepped-up basis is not an issue. It only becomes an issue when 
and if you want to sell the farm.
    And so there is an issue there. And I think there are some 
creative--there are creative thoughts that we can put into play 
as they mix and mingle and think about all of these issues. 
Happy to make sure that you know that we are reaching out and 
making sure folks understand and appreciate the potential 
impact on those farmers who decide to sell their land.
    Those farmers who decide to keep the land and keep farming 
it, this is really, in a sense, the stepped-up basis doesn't 
have the impact because they are not going to pay any tax 
because they are going to keep the farm, they are going to keep 
farming the farm. So it is a specific subset of people within 
agriculture that could potentially be impacted and affected by 
this.
    Mr. Bishop. May I interject, Mr. Secretary, and if the 
gentleman, Dr. Harris, would yield.
    This is an issue of very intense interest, particularly the 
American Farm Bureau has it at the top of their priority list. 
As we look at possible additional revenues for affording the 
infrastructure package, the estate tax is one that they are 
really, really afraid of and they have been pushing as a part 
of their agenda for years to try to reduce it or eliminate it. 
And, of course, Dr. Harris raises a great question.
    So I just hope that you will continue to consider the 
impact that it will have on family farms, as well as other 
small businesses, family-owned businesses I should say, because 
it could have a tremendous impact on keeping those entities in 
business.
    Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, I think there will always 
be a debate and conversation about this, and it obviously 
depends on the level of exemptions that may or may not be 
available. Today I think it is roughly, what, $11 million per 
couple, and there are not just that many farming operations 
that are above that number.
    Of those that are, you also have special use valuation that 
allows you to reduce the value of your land. And of those who 
even after they reduce the value are still subject potentially 
to estate tax, there are ways in which that tax can be paid 
over a period of time where, frankly, the farm doesn't have to 
be sold and doesn't have to be lost.
    So I think people have to understand it is a complicated 
issue. There are lots of different subissues involved with this 
that oftentimes don't get discussed because people think if 
there is an estate tax, then virtually every farm is going to 
be subject to it. That may or may not be the case depending 
upon the level of the exemption and depending upon what is done 
with special use valuation and what is done with the payment 
structure and time period that you have to pay any estate tax 
that is owed.
    So I understand it is a difficult issue. I understand the 
Farm Bureau is very interested in this. I understand why these 
questions are being asked. But I think it is important for us, 
as we deal with this issue, that we understand the full range 
of what we are talking about and how few farms ultimately will 
be potentially impacted depending upon the level of, in a small 
business, depending upon the level of the exemptions.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Dr. Harris, I usurped some of your time, and if you have 
additional questions, you may reclaim it.
    Mr. Harris. No. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, the concern is you don't always sell the 
whole farm. If the exemption is lowered enough, then the 
families would have to sell some of the farm, all of it, of 
course, subject to--or not subject to stepped-up basis.
    So that is the issue there. It is not just black and white, 
you have to sell the whole farm or none. In the case of owing 
estate taxes, you might choose to sell some. So it is important 
even if you don't sell the whole farm.
    But if you could just quickly address the broadband and 
what the Department is doing to make certain that we are 
getting this deliverable as quickly as possible.
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, we took a look at the ReConnect 
program, understood the way it was structured. Very few 
communities would actually have benefited from the program, and 
those that would wouldn't necessarily have the upload and 
download speeds necessary to make it meaningful.
    So we made adjustments to the program to make more 
communities eligible and to make sure that the service they get 
is meaningful.
    Your point is well taken. In the interest of time, to get 
things done, you can't sacrifice quality. And so it will be 
necessary for us to make sure that as bids are being awarded, 
as grants are being awarded, that they are being awarded to 
folks that show the capacity and the capability of actually 
doing what they say they are going to do and a track record of 
being able to prove that they can do it.
    Otherwise, we could subject ourselves to a lot of money 
being spent and a poor performance, resulting in no broadband 
and money spent, which is certainly not what we want.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    I understand that Mr. Fortenberry has no additional 
questions, and I think we have come to the end of our hearing.
    And so I want to just thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your 
testimony, for spending almost 3 hours with us today. But I do 
say to you that perhaps this was not as much time as you spent 
the last time that you were on the Hill to testify with our 
authorizing committee.
    But we are glad that you are back, bringing with you your 
deep knowledge of the Department and your invaluable experience 
to help lift up rural America and our farmers and ranchers.
    I wish you the best of luck. And we look forward to working 
with you as we continue the fiscal year 2022 appropriations 
process.
    Along with what we have discussed, we will also forward 
additional questions for the record and will appreciate your 
diligence in getting your responses to us and the staff in a 
timely manner.
    At this time, I recognize Mr. Fortenberry for any closing 
remarks that he may have.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Secretary, we are just really grateful for your 
impressive and thoughtful command of the full range of 
agricultural issues. It is a very complicated business, but it 
does show in its complications how this touches so much of 
America and how important it is. So thank you for being our 
messenger.
    I do have two quick comments, Mr. Chairman. I won't make 
them questions so as to not violate what you imposed upon me a 
moment ago.
    But just to point out to the Secretary, Mr. Secretary, it 
is my understanding that the NRCS doesn't allow animal and crop 
programs together. And obviously regenerative agriculture, some 
of the leading-edge regenerative agricultural dynamics require 
this. I want to put that on your radar screen. Maybe we can 
talk about that another time.
    One other thing, Mr. Chairman, if you can indulge me, and 
the Secretary brought this up indirectly.
    Look, we are living in the space of some contradiction here 
with our nutrition programs. Obviously food is nutrition, but 
food has to be health. Food is also medicine. So we are feeding 
more kids than ever, but we have a thousand-fold increase in 
childhood diabetes. Things that we all need to work hard to 
address.
    So, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your 
willingness to spend all this time with us.
    Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the opportunity to 
dialogue in, again, this thorough way with you and with the 
entire committee. Thank you for your leadership.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    And thank you to all the members for your attendance and 
your participation. I think it has been very, very helpful and 
enlightening. And let me also thank the staff who worked so 
hard to put this hearing together and for it to work out as 
smoothly as it has.
    With that, again thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And this hearing is now adjourned.
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                           Tuesday, April 20, 2021.

              FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, USDA

                                WITNESS

STACY DEAN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER 
    SERVICES, FNS, USDA
    Mr. Bishop. As this hearing is fully virtual, I now call it 
to order.
    Let me first begin by addressing a few housekeeping 
matters. For today's hearing, the chair or staff designated by 
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted 
yourself, I will ask if you would like the staff to unmute you. 
If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute your 
microphone. I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-
minute clock still applies.
    If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next 
member until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the 
balance of your time. You will notice a clock on your screen 
that will show how much time is remaining. At 1 minute 
remaining, the clock will turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, 
I will gently tap the gavel to remind members that their time 
is almost expired. When your time has expired, the clock will 
turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules beginning with the chair and 
ranking member, then alternating between majority and minority. 
Members present at the time the hearing is called to order will 
be recognized in order of seniority, between majority and 
minority. Members not present at the time of the hearing will 
be recognized according to their appearance.
    Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we 
have set up an email address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings and 
markups. That email address has been previously provided to 
your staff. Last reminder, please ensure that your video is 
turned on at this time.
    Well, let me just say good morning and welcome to today's 
hearing on USDA's Domestic Nutrition Assistance Programs. 
Testifying before the committee today is Stacy Dean, the Deputy 
Under Secretary of Food Nutrition and Consumer Services. Ms. 
Dean, although, you have only been on the job since January 21, 
you have a profound understanding of USDA's Domestic Nutrition 
Programs, stemming from your work at the Office of Management 
and Budget and later at the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities.
    Your work directing CPPP's food assistance team, which 
publishes frequent reports on which we in Congress rely very 
heavily, telling us how Federal nutrition programs with their 
families and your having work to develop policies to improve 
the delivery of health and human services programs at the State 
and local level has not gone unnoticed. You have certainly hit 
the ground running, and I thank you for being here to discuss 
the latest developments and opportunities and challenges ahead.
    FNS is responsible for overseeing 15 domestic nutrition 
assistance programs that comprise the Nation's nutrition safety 
net. Each year members--millions of our most vulnerable 
population rely on these programs to feed their children, put a 
good, healthy meal on the table. The past year, with millions 
out of work, school, we saw just how vital these programs are.
    COVID-19 and the resulting economic fallout disrupted life 
for everyone. And for tens of millions of people, it greatly 
exacerbated hunger and food insecurities. In many cases, 
programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
SNAP, or the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TFAP was a 
difference between having food or missing a meal. For some, it 
was their first time needing assistance. To me, it underscores 
the absolute necessity of continuing to invest and improve 
these programs.
    It is worth taking a moment to look at SNAP and TFAP to 
understand the magnitude of the crisis. Before the pandemic 
hit, there were around 38 million monthly SNAP participants. In 
September 2020, there were nearly 43 million SNAP participants. 
And to date, the pandemic EBT has helped 16.8 million children. 
For fiscal year 2021, we provided an additional $80 million for 
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, a program that 
supplements the diets of low-income seniors. And from several 
COVID-19 supplements, Congress has appropriated more than $1.2 
billion for TFAP.
    I am sure we all remember seeing pictures and news reports 
of people waiting in miles-long food lines or food banks. While 
these images are jarring, and it is essential to remember that 
behind these pictures are real families that are trying to 
figure out just how they are going to make it through the day, 
tomorrow, and the week ahead.
    To its credit, FNS has issued more than 4,000 program 
waivers and flexibilities to adjust to local needs and maximize 
access to all eligible families. This includes the nationwide 
extension of several waivers that allow all children to 
continue to receive nutritious meals this summer when schools 
are out of session through September 30, 2021.
    I was also glad to see that USDA recently increased 
emergency SNAP benefits for 25 million people. In my home State 
of Georgia, that makes an additional $38.8 million in monthly 
benefits, which would make a measurable difference in people's 
lives.
    I am also looking forward to hearing your thoughts on WIC, 
pandemic EBT, the SNAP Online Purchasing Program, and nutrition 
assistance in the Territories, also, the Farmers to Families 
Food Box Program. I would like to hear your explanation of the 
Secretary's decision to end it as well as your thoughts on the 
Food Purchase and Distribution Program that has assisted 
American farmers and ranchers who are negatively impacted by 
trade policies.
    As you can tell, there is a lot to discuss today, and I 
again want to thank you, Deputy Under Secretary Dean, for being 
with us, and I look forward to our discussion.
    Now, let me ask my distinguished ranking member, my partner 
in this endeavor, Mr. Fortenberry, if he will give any opening 
remarks that he cares to give. And for that purpose, I will 
recognize you, Mr. Fortenberry, at this time.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, not only 
for your friendship but your important leadership. 
Particularly, in topics like this. This is the largest, by far, 
part of the USDA budget. And we cannot overlook this as we are 
dealing with all the structural issues facing our country.
    Mr. Chairman, I am happy you invoked the image of food 
banks as you were giving your opening remarks. One of the more 
jarring images for me during the height of the pandemic, 
actually, in early stages when it was beginning to surge was 
the visit I paid to one of my local food banks. They had 
actually moved it outside, and there were a line of cars a 
quarter mile long. Some of the people that were there I was 
told they used to serve food, now they are asking for our help.
    And so, again, I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, us working 
vigorously last year with the Department to basically establish 
the programs in which we provided the food--the supplemental 
food boxes as well as other initiatives so that we weren't 
wasting food at that time.
    Ms. Dean, good morning, congratulations on your new 
position. I will move right into several key topics that I 
would like you to address. This hearing today really evokes a 
paradox because it is one that faces our wealthy Nation. Our 
extraordinary natural resources, our ingenuity, our 
technological prowess, all of these things have allowed us to 
provide among the most abundant, low-cost nutritious and 
extraordinarily diverse array of foods in the entire world.
    The average American spends less than 10 percent of their 
income on food. Our farmers are so productive that we can even 
afford to export billions of dollars in food aid every year. 
All good things. And yet, we also know that some Americans 
still face hunger. The core question is how is that possible?
    Second, I think we should examine the metric for success at 
USDA's 15 or more nutritional programs. USDA manages feeding 
programs for every stage of life, from prenatal children to 
senior citizens. We spend over $120 billion in the SNAP 
program. But as I said to--I asked Secretary Vilsack last week, 
food is nutrition, food is also health, food is also medicine. 
The question then becomes we feed people, but do we feed people 
well, especially when we experience a thousand-fold increase in 
childhood diabetes, for instance. What is wrong? We have spent 
and spent. Hunger has been reduced, thankfully, but yet at the 
expense of health.
    Finally, let us look at the subset of our programs that 
from my perspective, I believe, is a part of a transformation 
or way of thinking to meet the multiple objectives of both food 
and nutrition, support for farmers and local economies, and 
inspiration for the next generation of agricultural producers. 
It is called the Farm to School Program. I am proud to have 
regularly advanced this initiative in Congress and helped to 
refine it as we continue to promote it.
    Last year, I visited one of my local elementary schools--
actually, it was before the pandemic--and participated in what 
is called a crunch-off. So the people who are managing this 
program, filtering it all the way down to the elementary school 
level are very dedicated and enthusiastic to introduce to 
children healthy, fresh, locally grown foods.
    The crunch-off in this case was taking apples from the 
local region and biting into them on a countdown. One little 
child held up the apple and said, ``Is this apple real?''
    So it shows how we have got a huge opportunity to continue 
to educate kids, grow local economies, connect the farmer 
through the family through our school system, and this is an 
important program. More than 23 million students at 47,000 of 
America's schools have participated in the Farm to School 
Program.
    So it is an important priority and, again, I think one of 
those small programs that has the potential to be scale to grow 
the outcomes that we need to see of completely holistically 
integrating both food as nutrition and even possibly food as 
medicine.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dean, I look forward 
to your comments.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. It is my 
understanding that our chair, Ms. DeLauro, nor our ranking 
member of the full committee, Ms. Granger, neither is going to 
be in attendance. They have got some other responsibilities 
with some other subcommittees this morning.
    So at this point, I think it is appropriate for us to 
introduce and to call on our witness, Ms. Dean. And I would 
appreciate very much if you would move forward with your 
testimony. And I now yield the floor to you, Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and Ranking Member 
Fortenberry. I am Stacy Dean, Deputy Under Secretary for the 
Food Nutrition and Consumer Services at USDA. And I really 
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all today about 
FNS' COVID response.
    The COVID-19 public health and economic crisis has caused 
unprecedented hardship, as the chairman noted, making it 
difficult for many to afford food and keep a roof over their 
head. Today, an estimated 25 million adults and 6 to 10 million 
children are struggling to get enough to eat, with communities 
of color hit particularly hard.
    The Biden administration has taken a whole of government 
approach to addressing such hardship. Upon taking office, 
President Biden directed every Federal agency to help Americans 
in the pandemic script. Congress had already enhanced FNS' 
ability to adapt our programs and response to the pandemic, and 
we are grateful for that, but more needed to be done. So let me 
share three examples of our administrative efforts.
    First, as you noted, we strengthened pandemic EBT to help 
low-income families make up for missed schools when schools are 
closed, increasing benefits by about a dollar a day per child, 
and our new guidance simplified to EBT implementation. Today, 
35 States and Territories have approved the EBT plan to serve 
more than 20 million children. We are working hard to help 
other States and Territories launch their own programs. We 
addressed a major gap in SNAP emergency allotment policy that 
resulted in little or no help to some 25 million program 
participants who are the least able to absorb COVID's economic 
shocks. Starting this month, all SNAP households will receive 
at least an extra $95 a month in help.
    And this morning, we announced needed flexibilities for 
child nutrition programs for the next school year, so that we 
can ensure that we are supporting a strong school reopening and 
feeding kids safely with healthy nutritious meals.
    In addition to these administrative actions, President 
Biden proposed, and Congress just passed, the American Rescue 
Plan, providing significant new nutrition assistance. Just 5 
weeks after enactment, the rescue plan is already helping 
families. In shelters that participate in the Child and Adult 
Care Food Program, the USDA now reimburses meals to homeless 
youth between the ages of 18 and 24.
    States are increasing WIC's cash value vouchers, more than 
tripling fruit and vegetable buying power for women and 
children. And States will receive over a billion dollars in 
administrative funds to help them meet increased demand for 
SNAP and to increase sufficiency and access in the program. 
Territories are building their plans to utilize the additional 
$1 billion Congress provided to help them serve hard-hit 
families.
    Now, looking ahead, the rescue plan will also extend 
pandemic EBTs through the summer and the duration of the public 
health emergency, and it extended the 15 percent boost in SNAP 
benefits that were slated to end in June through September. And 
that is about $100 a month for a family of four. It helps 
families purchase the food that they need, and it also supports 
farmers and producers who receive 15 cents out of every SNAP 
dollar.
    So USDA--and here I really want to highlight the amazing 
staff. My team at FNS have worked tirelessly to respond to the 
nutrition crisis. But we know that doing the work--just doing 
the work isn't evidence of a successful response. That is why 
we are building assessment into all of implementation efforts. 
We want to integrate lessons learned going forward, including 
the need to communicate early and often, offer broad 
flexibilities instead of individual and thousands of waivers, 
and address the way emergencies exacerbate longstanding 
inequities and service delivery in excess. Early signs suggest 
that our efforts are working. The latest census data suggests a 
drop in food hardship. It is a hopeful indicator that we will 
monitor closely.
    And while our focus has been the immediate COVID response, 
we are also looking ahead. As the President says, we must act 
boldly now to build a better tomorrow. And here are just three 
quick examples of our plans. First, we are working to ensure 
SNAP benefits can support healthy eating. For years, experts 
have argued that SNAP benefits do not reflect the realistic 
cost of a basic healthy diet, undermining participants' ability 
to buy and prepare healthy food.
    As the farm bill directed us, we are reevaluating the 
Thrifty Food Plan to ensure it meets that standard. Second, we 
will work to improve maternal and child health outcomes across 
racial and ethnic lines and administration priority through 
WIC.
    WIC is a proven intervention, and yet the share of eligible 
families receiving its benefits have declined over the past 
decade to only just more than half. We are going to invest 
rescue plan resources in better connecting WIC to healthcare 
and program improvements for best outreach and innovation and 
service delivery, all with the goal of improving equity and 
reducing health disparities.
    And third, we will prioritize nutrition security in each 
program. And I know the Secretary spoke to you about that. That 
includes incorporating the latest dietary guidelines where 
appropriate and strengthening nutrition education efforts.
    I am very eager to work with the subcommittee as we 
strengthen the programs to respond to COVID and for the future. 
Thank you, and I very much look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Dean. We will now 
proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier, we will begin 
with the chair and ranking member, then alternating majority 
and minority with members present at the time the hearing 
starts in order of seniority. After that, I will recognize 
members who are not present at the time the hearing is called 
to order. And I will do my best to accommodate Ms. Lee's 
request in the early parts of the round, following the chair 
and ranking member.
    Ms. Dean, as I have mentioned, you have had to hit the 
ground running. Recent announcements by the USDA such as 
providing an additional $1 billion per month of SNAP benefits 
to an estimated 25 million people, and officially ending the 
previous administration's attempt to restrict the ability of 
States to provide SNAP to able-bodied adults without dependents 
will have an immeasurable impact on people's lives.
    The last year, we have been reacting to the current crisis, 
but looking long-term, what kinds of changes do you think we 
need to make to ensure people have enough nutritious food, 
especially during emergencies? Tell us if USDA is working on a 
legislative proposal for the fiscal year 2022 budget, for the 
Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill, for the next farm bill, 
or all of the above.
    And if you would do that quickly. I would like to get to a 
second question having to do with nutrition assistance to the 
Territories. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands that are not part of the 
regular SNAP program, but they are dependent on Congress in the 
event of an emergency. In 2017, Hurricane Maria, Congress made 
available 1.9 billion for Puerto Rico, responded to the typhoon 
in the Mariana Islands in 2018, and provided relief for 
Territories and a number of other bills.
    Can you discuss the path forward as you see it 
transitioning these Territories to SNAP? I raise these 
questions and with reference to my memories of Congressman Jose 
Serrano. So tell us what the Territories need to do and what we 
need to do to help them.
    Ms. Dean. Okay. Let me take those in order. So, first, we 
very much look forward to working with Congress on what you 
talked about in terms of are there lessons learned, and in 
particular what can we do to help the programs flex in an 
emergency moving forward?
    So I would say I do think that thrifty adjustment is going 
to be one of the most important things that we do to make sure 
that the program offers a benefit that will be sufficient for a 
basic healthy diet. But, as we look ahead to opportunities like 
child nutrition reauthorization, I would say a great example of 
what we could be doing there is building an emergency disaster 
authority into child nutrition and WIC, so that we are not 
dependent upon Congress offering us the kinds of wonderful 
flexibilities that you did through Families First and CARES, 
but that we have got it ready to go. So that would just be two 
quick examples, Mr. Chairman.
    With respect to the Territories, first, let me--I hope what 
reiterates what you already know which is President Biden is 
fully committed to the Territories having access to the Federal 
nutrition programs consistent with States. So that will take an 
act of Congress. But we are already leaning in on that.
    We--my regional leads and I have met with--the regional 
leads have met with the leadership teams at--in--sorry, CNMI, 
the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, and American 
Samoa to talk to them about what their interest is, and how we 
can work together in building a plan on what transitioning from 
the block grants to SNAP would mean.
    And second, I have met with Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon 
already as well as Congressman Sablan about their interest on 
this. We take this very seriously, and we look forward to 
working with you and the authorizers on the plan.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Now, Ms. Dean, can you share your 
thoughts about the need to consider racial justice in our 
domestic food programs. Secretary Vilsack has cast the efforts 
to improve America's access to nutritious food as a part of the 
racial justice effort. Can you discuss that, please?
    Ms. Dean. Yes. Well, this sort of intercepts with all 
aspects of what we do. As I talk to my team, I think we want to 
understand how and why people are coming to need food 
assistance. And longstanding racial inequality and systemic 
racism, particularly, for example, in the labor market are a 
part of what brings people to needing our food assistance. And 
knowing and appreciating that, I think, is very important.
    As we look to meet people's needs, we want to know why they 
are coming to us and how and when--and then second, what are 
the food programs doing to push against those disparities? And, 
certainly, at a minimum, we don't want to make anything worse. 
You mentioned the 3-month time limit in SNAP and our efforts to 
soften the prior administration's efforts to make that worse.
    I think that is an example of a policy that probably really 
exacerbates racial inequality just because the labor market is 
not an equal opportunity place. And asking individuals to work 
part to full-time just won't play out the same across racial 
and ethnic lines.
    And, of course, then there is the issue healthy and 
nutritious food. We see in our school meals program that we 
have been able to increase the quality of what children eat, 
and that cuts across racial and ethnic lines which is so 
important because the way that health disparities play out. Oh, 
sorry.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Dean. My time has expired. I 
will be happy to come back to you.
    But at this time, I would like to yield to our 
distinguished Ranking Member, Fortenberry for questions. You 
are now recognized, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dean, if you 
were to grade the Federal Government's performance in educating 
and influencing the America's public on eating well, on eating 
choices, what grade would you give?
    Ms. Dean. I would say the American public's grade isn't 
very--isn't a good one in a sense of we know Americans aren't 
eating with respect to health and eating--healthy eating index. 
Sorry. I think we can do more. I am not sure how to grade us, 
but I know--I know we are not at an A, and we have a lot to do 
to get there.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I can give you the litany of 
statistics. One of which I cited in my opening remarks about a 
thousand-fold increase in childhood diabetes. And then, of 
course, we have increasing obesity rates, and in correlation to 
that problem, the health outcome. So it lands squarely on the 
plate, if you will, as a beginning component of how we not only 
feed people, but we feed people well, both in terms of public 
programs, but also the projection of nutrition education and 
information.
    So how are we going to fix that?
    Ms. Dean. Well, Mr. Fortenberry, you couldn't have a more 
passionate chairman on this issue than the Secretary, and I 
hope he conveyed that very clearly last week. Some of the 
things----
    Mr. Fortenberry. He did.
    Ms. Dean [continuing]. Some of the things we will be doing 
is making sure that we update all of the nutrition standards in 
our programs to reflect the most recent set of dietary 
guidelines. Those revisions offer us an opportunity to take a 
look at how we are doing with respect to promoting and 
supporting healthy nutritious food. I also think the adjustment 
to SNAP's Thrifty Food Plan will put healthy food in reach for 
many very, very poor families for whom it just may not have 
been an option for them.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, look, you use the term ``nutritional 
security,'' I like that term. We talk in terms of food 
security, and let's be frank, we have done a very good job of 
increasing caloric intake and substantially reducing, let's 
call it, systemic hunger across this country. But the issue, 
that isn't fully the issue, as we are seeing. Food is health. 
And to make those two things inextricably intertwined has to be 
the objective if we are providing a holistic public policy for 
well-being.
    Let me turn then to the Farm to School Program quickly. How 
can we scale that program? I assume you like it. I do. I think 
it is an important program, again, meeting multiple objections 
in educating kids about nutrition, but also generating local 
economies for our farmers.
    Ms. Dean. Well, we love the Farm to School Program. I loved 
your story of crunch off. I just have to flag that. So, look, 
part of the issue is the resources that we have for the grants. 
So that will be something that we will have on work with 
Congress on. I think we have a number of ideas about--and I 
appreciated the bill you had potentially looking at the scale 
of grants so that we can bring in more larger-scale efforts.
    And I think we also want to take a look at some of the core 
learning of farm to school. And I want to make sure we are 
talking with or partners at AMS and rural development about how 
we make sure that we are working our costs, our different leans 
at USDA to bring local producers and connect them with the 
schools and our purchasing power. So I hope we build bigger.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Well, obviously, we have a decided 
emphasis on this program because of all the reasons that I 
said, and I think it is exciting.
    And the question--the other question, though, is there a 
nexus with the extension service. You know, a long time ago, 
extension being fully integrated, or in particular in rural 
areas, substantially integrated into public school systems with 
basic classes on nutrition and other dynamics like that is less 
common now. Is there a nexus between farm to school and 
extension?
    Ms. Dean. Well, I think you make an excellent point there. 
Actually, we were planning to bring folks together from across 
USDA to talk about how to build out farm to school. So I will 
make sure extension is there. I appreciate that suggestion.
    Mr. Fortenberry. I think this is very important, because 
again the tradition of this was already in place. And for 
whatever reason, that began to drift because of social dynamics 
in the country. But I do think they have the foundational 
expertise to perhaps be a substantive participant in that 
internal discussion.
    Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    At this time, I am happy to recognize Ms. Lee, the chair of 
our Foreign Ops Subcommittee for your questions. Ms. Lee, you 
are now recognized.
    Ms. Lee of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you, Mr. Fortenberry, for giving me a chance to go early since 
I have another subcommittee that I am participating in. I 
really appreciate your help. And thank you for your leadership. 
And thank you, Ms. Dean, for being here with us. I have a 
couple of questions I just wanted to ask very quickly.
    Now, in your testimony, of course, you reference the 
disastrous conditions and consequences, excuse me, of the 
COVID-19 epidemic. And I will really applaud your 
administration--our administration for continuing to suspend 
the 3-month time limit on SNAP benefits for unemployed adults 
without dependents.
    Now, given what we know about just hunger in America in 
general, given what we know about the fact that so many more 
people are unemployed, and the longer that you are unemployed 
the more difficult it is for you to reenter the workforce, I am 
wondering and given the racial impact, disparate impact on 
communities with people of color, I want to make sure how do we 
permanently rescind the time limits with regard to the equity 
in our food assistance programs, and really make it permanent?
    Because these time limits just aren't going to work. We had 
a problem, a hunger problem in America before COVID. We have a 
hunger problem now. And so we don't need to go back to where we 
were by imposing time limits on SNAP benefits.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. I completely agree. 
This is an incredibly harsh rule that punishes individuals for 
being not being able to work 20 hours a week consistently in a 
labor market, certainly, today, but very often that just 
doesn't offer that opportunity for very low-skilled and very 
poor individuals. This includes homeless individuals, veterans. 
It is a rule that really expects, I think, what is not feasible 
for many.
    So the rule, however, is in the law. So changing it would 
require an act of Congress and something that perhaps could be 
taken up in the next farm bill.
    Ms. Lee of California. And we are working on that, as we 
speak, in terms of legislation. But I guess until we can get 
leg--you know, how this goes. It could take months years, who 
knows. And so many people are just barely hanging on now. And 
what we all know the food banks, the food lines, people who 
have been middle-income in the past have found themselves and 
find themselves in the food banks and begging their government 
just to help feed them.
    And so we have got to figure out how we can sustain this 
and keep people from--keep more people from going hungry 
through this period. Now, does that require just executive 
order after executive order after executive order to hold on 
until we get it passed in legislation? It is an emergency, and 
so I am trying to figure out----
    Ms. Dean. Gotcha.
    Ms. Lee of California [continuing]. What the administration 
is going to do until we get the legislation passed.
    Ms. Dean. Yes, sorry. Let me--Congress actually wisely 
suspended the time limit for the duration of the public health 
emergency. So for at least some time, we will have--the time 
limit will not be in effect. After that, States will have to 
seek waivers for areas of high unemployment within their State. 
And we will work very--we will be a very--what is the right 
word to say--good partner with States in making sure that they 
can apply that where possible. And I am happy to report back to 
your staff on some of the specific details if that is helpful.
    Ms. Lee of California. That will be helpful. Okay so what 
you are saying now is States can request a waiver, and then you 
would----
    Ms. Dean. For areas of high--excuse me, I am sorry, 
Congresswoman. For areas of high unemployment. It goes back to 
the old rules that were in place prior to the Trump 
administration's proposal to change them.
    I am happy to go through the details with your team, but I 
think the time limit very likely, just under the law, will be 
coming back at some point in the near future. Very 
unfortunately.
    Ms. Lee of California. Yeah, I think one of the issues, 
there may be areas of low unemployment. But with people of 
color, you have high unemployment. Like you may have low 
unemployment at 5, 4 percent. Yet, you will have African 
Americans, LatinX, API individuals, indigenous people, with 10 
percent, 15 percent unemployment.
    So some States may not be able to meet that threshold, yet 
you will have groups of people who are hungry still and can't 
deal with these, you know, in the time limits would prevent 
them from accessing the benefits.
    Ms. Dean. Absolutely. That is exactly the challenge that we 
face.
    Ms. Lee of California. Okay. Well, I would like to work 
with you on that because we can't come to the end of this and 
have so many more people of color falling into the--not even 
into the ranks of the poor but into the ranks of those who are 
hungry because it has been a heck of a struggle even before the 
pandemic.
    Ms. Dean. I will welcome that.
    Ms. Lee of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee. You are now free to pursue 
your other responsibilities.
    And at this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentleman 
from Alabama, the former chair of this subcommittee, Mr. 
Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt, you are now recognized for your 
questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to 
be with the subcommittee today. And I welcome Ms. Dean and 
being here with us today, virtually.
    And I want to ask about the American Rescue Plan Act funds. 
And I understand that it provided improvements to the SNAP 
online purchasing. Its electronic benefit and modernization was 
included, as well as mobile payment technologies, as well as 
technical assistance for retailers and farmers markets to adopt 
new technologies.
    And this subcommittee has over the years has recognized the 
challenges of rural communities that face insecure broadband 
connectivity. Can you talk a little bit about how the needs of 
rural SNAP participants could be prioritized.
    Ms. Dean. Well, I think the perfect example of a group that 
we want to make sure--I am sorry. This could very greatly 
benefit from the ability to do online shopping. And so those 
individuals as well as smaller retailers are both the 
participants and the type of enterprises that we are trying to 
put front and center and prioritize through our grant-making to 
make sure that we are making this a more viable option for as 
many people as possible, particularly, those as you mentioned 
who may not have access to a store nearby and where online 
shopping would make a big difference.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, but, you know, one thing that we are 
seeing is the broadband connectivity----
    Ms. Dean. Yeah.
    Mr. Aderholt [continuing].  Issue, and that is something 
that I think, you know, we can't forget about because there is 
many places that are rural in the Nation that still does not 
have that connectivity. And even though the new technologies 
are available, they are not able to use them. So----
    Ms. Dean. Well, Congressman, you make a good point. And as 
we work on how to deploy these funds, we should be talking to 
our colleagues at World Development to look at how USDA is 
rolling out more rural broadband to make sure that we are 
leveraging, making sure that the participants have the tools 
that they need. So we will--I will take that back.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, and I think--and I would love to work 
with you on that, because that has been an issue I that I 
worked on, and many on this subcommittee have worked on over 
the years.
    Let me ask about the SNAP quality control system. During 
the pandemic, there was, of course, understandably an increased 
participation in the nutrition assistance programs that was 
administered by your area of FNS. How has the increased volume 
and the changes to the program impacted the SNAP quality 
control review?
    Ms. Dean. So thank you very much for that question. And, of 
course, program integrity is a very--is a top priority for us. 
Congress actually suspended quality control reviews in some of 
the prior--the prior legislation basically deciding to 
prioritize access in meeting this emergency in terms of the 
tremendous food need.
    Quality--we still encourage States to continue to do the 
reviews. It is just that our official Federal measurement 
system has taken a pause. That comes back on line later this 
summer. And as I said, we have been encouraging States to 
continue to do reviews for themselves. We are still working 
with them on ensuring that programs are spent accurately. But 
it will be, we probably will not have an official Federal Error 
Rate for the pandemic period.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. And I might just take 
note of the fact that as we are meeting and as we speak, the 
Authorizing Committee is holding a hearing with World 
Development On Rural Broadband. And, of course, it is a very, 
very important issue. And I think it goes to the issues that 
you raised, Mr. Aderholt. So if it is any consolation, the 
Authorizing Committee is holding hearings right now on that 
very subject.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to recognize the 
gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Lauren Underwood. Ms. Underwood, 
you were now recognized for your questions.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to Ms. Dean for joining us today. So in last week's hearing of 
Secretary Vilsack, I asked home questions about the 
Department's plan to improve the WIC program. And I am really 
glad to have this opportunity with you today to get some more 
information on the Food and Nutrition Services efforts in this 
space.
    Ms. Dean, in your written testimony, you say connecting 
more eligible women and children to WIC services is one of the 
most powerful interventions available to reduce racial 
disparities and maternal and child health outcomes. I am 
pleased to see that participation among eligible Black and 
LatinX families is higher than average, and that the agency is 
accelerating outreach to increase WIC enrollment. But the Black 
maternal mortality crisis is worsening, and we must do more.
    The President's Fiscal Year 2022 Discretionary Funding 
Request includes an overall increase of more than $1 billion 
for critical nutrition programs, including WIC. Specifically, 
Ms. Dean, how will your agency use this increase in WIC funding 
to address the maternal mortality crisis for Black mothers and 
other women and birthing people of color?
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Congresswoman Underwood. I think, 
first, we are going to start with the new resources that were 
provided by Congress through the American Rescue Plan we are 
calling it our WIC Outreach Innovation and Modernization Fund. 
We want to actually--your bill, as some of our inspiration on 
the kinds of--the areas where we want to be making investments.
    So, absolutely, our national outreach plan, we want to be 
providing grant-making to better connect WIC to the local 
healthcare and maternal and childcare healthcare system so that 
there is information sharing and cross referrals there.
    We want to make sure that WIC is--WIC could use, in some 
cases, some streamlining in modernization on the services that 
it is providing so that it remains inviting--an inviting 
service for moms and children. So we start there. Those funds 
aren't all we want to do though. Those funds are a tool for us 
to shift our approach on strengthening the program.
    So let me stop there. I think that budget request is a 
little difficult for me to get into. But the bottom line goal 
is we are seeking full funding for WIC, and we are going to do 
everything we can to bring more eligible mothers, infants, and 
children to this program because we know it works in improving 
their basic nutrition and health.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you so much. That is wonderful to 
hear. My Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act would extend the 
WIC eligibility period for postpartum and breast feeding 
individuals to 24 months. According to the National WIC 
Association, extending eligibility to provide ongoing nutrition 
support for postpartum mothers is a critical step to setting up 
future pregnancy success, ensuring mothers continue to receive 
nutritious food and tailored counseling to mitigate or prevent 
chronic diet-related conditions like diabetes and obesity.
    Ms. Dean, can you just speak to how extending WIC's 
postpartum and breast feeding eligibility periods could expand 
the program's positive impacts on the health of mothers and 
babies?
    Ms. Dean. Well, I think Congresswoman, you just did that 
for me the idea of keeping them connected to WIC's terrific 
services would mean that they are--just gotten, have more 
ongoing connection to health, nutrition counseling, and, of 
course, the broad set of referal services.
    Do you think it is--I think, I am very interested in this, 
and I want us to take a close look at this. But it is also very 
important in WIC because Congress and administrations crossed 
party lines for decades have made a strong commitment to full 
funding in WIC. We want to make sure that the cost of this can 
be born out permanently. And that the appropriators would be 
fully committed to that.
    So I look forward to learning more from you and talking 
more with you and your staff about this idea.
    Ms. Underwood. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. In the 2020 to 2025 
dietary guidelines for Americans released in late 2020, it 
contains key evidence-based recommendations for healthy diets, 
including new recommendations for pregnant and lactating women, 
infants, and young children. What kind of funding and support 
will be required for USDA to implement a successful consumer 
education campaign to ensure that the public has culturally 
relevant and acceptable tools to support healthy eating?
    Ms. Dean. I am thrilled to hear your interest in that. And 
I think you will find the details on our budget request will 
give you the information that you need there on how FNS can do 
more for public----
    Ms. Underwood. Yeah.
    Ms. Dean [continuing]. Public efforts. So I look forward to 
more conversation.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, thanks so much for your testimony 
today. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood. I believe Mr. Harris 
has stepped away. Dr. Harris has stepped away. So at this time 
I am delighted to represent--to recognize the gentleman from 
California Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you Ms. 
Dean, Deputy Under Secretary for your time today.
    Ms. Dean, throughout your testimony you referenced the 
issue of food insecurity. I am glad you are bringing this up 
because it is a very important subject. Just last week, USDA 
Secretary Vilsack testified in front of this subcommittee and 
discussed the importance of the food insecurity issue. The 
morning of the Secretary's hearing, we read in the news about 
the USDA's abrupt decision to cancel the Farmers to Families 
Food Box Program. This action seems to directly contradict your 
testimony that highlights the need to address food insecurity.
    Yesterday, my colleagues and I sent a letter to Secretary 
Vilsack expressing concern for the USDA's elimination of the 
program without replacing it with any real alternative to feed 
communities in need. Elimination will create further unrest in 
these communities who have already been negatively impacted by 
COVID-19 pandemic.
    We also urge the Secretary reverse this decision and 
continue the food box program. At the very least before ending 
the program, USDA should review the program in its most recent 
form, utilized nearly 1 billion left, and authorized but 
unspent funds for the program, and employ other authorities to 
continue the program before canceling it without substantial, 
substantive alternatives.
    On the subject just a few weeks ago, USDA hosted an all-day 
listening session on the food box program and received input 
from numerous stakeholders, many of them even in my district. 
Did you have any knowledge before the listening session that 
USDA was planning to cancel the program? And if so, why would 
you hold such a lengthy event just to turn around and almost 
immediately cancel the program?
    Ms. Dean. Congressman Valadao, thank you for your question. 
I think as the Secretary pointed out last week, the program was 
set up during a crisis to be a temporary response, and the 
funding to support it has also been temporary. So it was stood 
up in emergency when we faced an incredibly uncertain time, 
deep significant spike in hunger, as you noted, and of course 
the problem of severe food loss and throughout the food system.
    So we are both assessing the program as well as assessing 
the current context in what is needed. And the Secretary will 
determine a plan for the new CFAC funds that leverages, I hope, 
that--sorry, I don't mean to say ``I hope,'' that leverages, 
that builds in all of the learning as well as looks to take 
advantage of the extraordinary and incredibly efficient 
emergency food bank system. We know that we can do more there 
to help strengthen them, and we feel that that is probably the 
right way to transition forward.
    So the details of his plan aren't yet available, but we 
will absolutely be briefing Members of Congress when they are 
ready.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. And the reason why I ask 
that question is to go through the process of having a 
listening session to bring in stakeholders for a program that 
was going to be eliminated almost immediately after listening 
session, it would have been a prime opportunity to get input 
from folks on how to fix the program or how to create a program 
that is more efficient.
    I mean, I understand there were problems with it, but that 
was a good opportunity to help resolve some of the problems 
with these programs. And I think that should have been the 
focus on it, especially since almost immediately it was 
canceled, and that listening session was pretty much a waste 
for a lot of folks.
    Ms. Dean. Well, if I may, some of the learning that we have 
gotten from the listening sessions are things that we want to 
employ. We have heard about the need for more flexibility, for 
example, in the TFAP program. We heard about the tremendous 
value of having a prepackaged box during this kind of 
emergency. So we are looking to offer something like that in 
TFAP where we are offering something like that in TFAP right 
now.
    So I don't think it--I really don't want the folks to think 
that we didn't listen, and that we aren't seeking to build a 
way forward with some of the incredible lessons that we heard 
in those sessions. We took it very seriously and still do.
    Mr. Valadao. And so moving forward, if--I mean, obviously, 
I haven't had a chance to put in your comments during that 
listening session. But now that the known program is 
eliminated, will producers have the opportunity to provide 
input for the future regarding expansion of existing nutrition 
assistance programs or creation of a new food distribution 
program? Or will there be an opportunity for producers to have 
that input on that as well?
    Ms. Dean. Well, I think USDA is always a ready listener to 
our producer partners. I am not sure we will be creating a new 
program, but, again, trying to incorporate a lot of the 
learning that we got and the input from producers across many 
sectors. There were some sector-focused listening sessions. I 
think we are here and ready to meet if folks have thoughts for 
us.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate the time. I am 
out of time, so I will yield back the rest.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to the chair lady of 
the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, the 
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Ms. 
Schultz, you are now recognized.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And 
thank for your leadership on this important issue.
    Welcome, Secretary. I just want to go over, last week 
during our hearing with Secretary Vilsack, the Secretary 
mentioned that the USDA is ending the Farm to Food Box Program, 
which was established by the Trump administration. Flaws in the 
program's implementation became evident almost immediately. 
Trump's USDA chose inexperienced distributors, including a 
catering company and financial services provider now under 
investigation to launch the box program. Food pantries soon 
began complaining that deliveries weren't arriving, that 
produce was arriving in poor condition, and the boxes 
themselves were falling apart.
    Feeding South Florida, the largest local food bank in my 
region told me firsthand how the program led to what they call 
a commodity clip, in which they were no longer receiving the 
necessary food each week despite an uptick in need.
    I know that USDA recently announced that it plans to create 
a new program which will purchase fresh food produce for a 
produce box program to run through food banks, and that you 
also are in the process of designing a dairy donation program.
    Can you provide us any more information on what these new 
programs will look like and how they differ from the 
inefficiencies of the previous Trump administration program?
    Ms. Dean. Sure. Let me take a crack at that. So, first, I 
think the experience of the Farmers to Families was uneven. And 
it sounds like in Florida it was less positive than in other 
places. Looking ahead, we aren't--with respect to the Emergency 
Food Assistance Program or TFAP, we are including a new 
program. We have created a new offering so that food banks 
through our State TFAP agencies can order prepackaged produce 
box. We are trying that as an alternative to the--when we offer 
just a produce, or something they can offer, sorry, order in 
bulk. So this is an example of where we are integrating the 
learning from the past year into our existing programs.
    So if that works, and it is successful, and the food banks 
like it, they like the convenience of the prepackaged box, we 
will see if we can continue to do that with available funds.
    I think the other lesson learned was some of the 
flexibilities that our food banks enjoyed, not just through 
Farmers to Families, but also through some of the trade 
mitigation programs, flexibilities and procurement. And also a 
focus on the local procurement. These are all things we are 
trying to integrate into our underlying programs rather than 
creating something new.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I want to just follow up and say 
that many argue that boosting SNAP benefits or providing other 
forms of direct cash assistance for people in need of food 
might have been far more efficient than the box deliveries. Can 
you discuss how an increase in SNAP benefits has been helpful 
to those who might otherwise attend the food distribution site 
and how the different types of assistance work together?
    Ms. Dean. Yeah, thanks so much for that. That is right. One 
of the key differences today versus say a year ago is we are 
deploying a much greater--to a much greater extent, shoring up 
household food purchasing power, using SNAP and the pandemic 
EBT program by putting resources directly into the hands of 
households so that they can go the grocery store and buy the 
food that they need for their families.
    That we hope, based on the latest census data is indicating 
a little bit of a drop in food hardship, and that is a data 
point, not a trend. But we are--and that has really been the 
whole point of shoring up robust household food assistance is 
to meet the scale of this crisis with a scaled robust response.
    So with that, we hope that the demand at emergency food 
banks decline. So I am sure it will take some time. And we can 
see an easing off there.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Great, and just as my time is 
winding down, I want to just mention the USDA expanded the 
child nutrition program flexibilities through this summer. But 
we know that 13 million children live in food insecurity 
households across the country, and almost 30 million children 
are enrolled in prereduced priced meals in school. That is 
probably going to increase as children return to brick and 
mortar schools.
    Can you give us the assurance that school districts will be 
given notice enough notice when child nutrition program 
flexibilities expire or temporary programs ends? And will 
stopgap programs be put in place if needed?
    Ms. Dean. Sure, Congresswoman, this morning we announced a 
new set of waivers that would be available for the next school 
year. Twelve waivers that I think taken together will meet what 
schools and childcare programs need in order to have a 
successful strong reopening and be responsive to public health 
and provide them with the resources they need.
    We are planning to go back to a normal--so as I hope all of 
are in our broader lives go back to normal operations the 
following school year. But we will be working with them 
throughout the coming 18 months for both what they need today 
and to get ready for that shift back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much. My time has 
expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Dr. Harris is back at this time. I am delighted to 
recognize Dr. Harris the gentleman from Maryland for such 
questions as you may have. You are now recognized Dr. Harris.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Dean, let me just follow up on one question about the 
so-called work requirements. Because my understanding is that 
it is not only work, it could be training, job training, or it 
could even be volunteer work. Is that right?
    Ms. Dean. It is. Although, we don't fund for those programs 
to meet the demand for them.
    Mr. Harris. Right, but volunteer programs, you wouldn't 
have to fund the volunteer program, right? I mean, it is a 
volunteer?
    Ms. Dean. That is true. Although, many organizations don't 
want to do it because of the insurance and costs associated for 
them. But, yes, you are correct. You can volunteer.
    Mr. Harris. Okay. Could you get me information about 
restrictions, my office information about restrictions on 
volunteers, so, in fact, there are volunteer opportunities? 
Because in my communities, I would like to know if volunteer 
opportunities are there.
    And, of course, the workforce is in another committee I sit 
on, the Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education 
Committee. So you know we will deal with that in that 
committee. But just to correct it, you know, we call it work 
requirement. But it is not really a work requirement. It is 
work, volunteer, or training requirement.
    Now, let me follow up with you a little bit about this. You 
said nutrition security is very important. So let me talk a 
little bit about fresh vegetables versus frozen foods, because 
the nutrition of them are virtually the same. Frozen foods are 
more cost-effective, less prone to waste than fresh foods. But 
I have noticed that many nutrition assistance programs seem to 
have a preference for fresh fruits and vegetables over frozen. 
Again, even though nutritionally, there is very little 
difference. So is there a preference at your agency for fresh 
fruits and vegetables over frozen?
    Ms. Dean. No, sir, the dietary--we go along with the 
dietary guidelines and the--for example, in the WIC cash value 
voucher program can be spent both on fresh and frozen.
    Mr. Harris. Okay. So, and that is good to know. It brings 
up another question about nutrition. So as a physician, look, I 
know we have problems with obesity, we have problems with 
diabetes, we have a problem with things that we think are diet-
related. And yet the SNAP program restricts very few foods. The 
eligibility to buy--there are very few restrictions on what you 
can buy in very strict contradistinction to the WIC program, 
which we have already discussed in some light, which actually 
targets only spending on nutritional foods.
    Why is the Department--or I should say, is there any 
movement within the Department to try to stay, yeah, maybe we 
should--maybe we should take those who are receiving SNAP 
benefits and actually--and the fresh vegetable program--
obviously, fresh fruits and vegetables goes toward that, but 
there is more than that. Are there any indications that 
restricting some of what you can access with SNAP benefits 
might actually have nutrition security value?
    Ms. Dean. Well, I think what we are prioritizing right now 
is what I spoke about earlier, and that is ensuring that the 
program's basic benefit is sufficient to purchase a healthy 
diet. Many experts, including physicians say that it is not. 
And I hesitate to say this to a Doctor, well, what we hear is 
the right medicine but the wrong dose.
    And so we--I think our first, most important step is to 
make sure that we have a realistic estimate of what the cost of 
a basic healthy diet is. And that is what we are using, and 
that is the power of what we are giving to participants. And 
so, I guess I would just say----
    Mr. Harris. Yeah, let me just, because I only have about a 
minute left, but let me concentrate on that because there are 
virtually no restrictions on what you can buy with the SNAP 
benefit except for prepared foods. I mean, I understand that. 
But you can buy things that are very high in starch content, 
very high in high fructose corn syrup, very high in salt, very 
high in sugar. You can buy sodas, snack foods, things like 
that. And I don't know of any physician who says that is the 
right medicine. Because I think you not only have the wrong 
dosage, I think you actually have the wrong medicine, because 
you enable to do that.
    And years ago I joined with Dr. Rowe. We filed a bill to 
actually just parallel the WIC requirement with the SNAP 
requirement in terms of what food may be available. I think we 
might be on the verge of a bipartisan bill, filing a bill that 
would actually ask the department to put those kind of 
restrictions on. Would they be beneficial nutritionally?
    Ms. Dean. I think adjusting the benefits to the correct 
level is the best first step. And I think that all of the 
evidence suggests SNAP participants are buying very much in 
line with what other Americans are purchasing, and that is 
concerns that you have for diet needs to be addressed for the 
whole country, and not just low-income households.
    Mr. Harris. That is the whole problem----
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Harris.
    Mr. Harris [continuing]. Defining exactly what Americans 
are buying.
    Mr. Bishop. Your time has expired.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. At this time, I am delighted to 
recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Meng.
    Ms. Meng, you are now recognized for your questions.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And Deputy Under Secretary 
Dean, thank you for being here today. The programs administered 
by FNS have been real lifesaving for my constituents both 
before COVID and especially over this last year. My district in 
Queens, New York, was one of the first impacted by COVID. The 
impact of this disruption will be felt around dinner tables for 
long after we are all vaccinated.
    And I do want to mention that when Secretary Vilsack was 
here last week, I urged him to support expanding flexibility 
around SNAP and, particularly, to support the elimination of 
the hot foods exclusion which are neither automatically more or 
less healthy than cold food. And the inability to purchase them 
with SNAP dollars creates unnecessary complications for 
seniors, homeless, people with disabilities, single parents, 
college students, and more.
    Today, I wanted to ask about online SNAP pilots, which I 
strongly advocated for, including in a letter from 94 New York 
elected officials from all levels of government last year, 
which called in part for the expansion of this program.
    Many of us across the country benefitted significantly from 
online grocery ordering over the past year. It helped to keep 
elderly and immuno-compromised out of crowded grocery stores. 
They are not just beneficial from a public health standpoint, 
but to also help essential workers, seniors, busy parents, and 
these services have shown to be particularly beneficial to 
those who participate in the SNAP program.
    I wanted to ask how FNS is continuing to expand the SNAP 
program, online purchasing pilot program, and what some of the 
challenges have been?
    Ms. Dean. Thanks very much for that question. And right 
now, more than 97 percent of SNAP households have access to 
online purchasing across 47 States and D.C. But we clearly need 
to do more because we want to expand the number of stores that 
make this option available.
    And, thankfully, Congress has provided us with three 
separate pots of funds that we are going to be pulling together 
in a coordinated plan in order to do more with respect to 
online purchasing, connecting farmers' markets to online 
purchasing, and then some broader oversight integrity work we 
need to do within the space on electronic benefits.
    So as I mentioned earlier in one of the other Qs and As 
that we really want to look to target bringing in small 
retailers who may not yet have this online purchasing platform 
for their nonstop business. We want to figure out how to bring 
them in. And we also will be looking to lift up and try to 
connect farmers' market to this option.
    So we are pulling together a plan now. And I am very 
delighted to come back to the committee when we are a little 
bit further along in the details to share it with you all.
    Ms. Meng. Thanks. And are there any updates on the 
implementation of the ARP provisions and when you can expect 
small farmers, food businesses, farmer markets to have access 
to online portals and associated technical assistance so they 
can begin to access SNAP EBT online?
    Ms. Dean. So technical assistance is available now. As 
farmers' markets or retailers approach us, we are ready for 
that conversation. So I want to make that clear. It will take 
us--because the funds will probably be going out through grants 
and contracts, that takes us a little bit of time as a 
government entity. So that could be a while before folks are 
appreciating the benefits of the funds. But there is no reason 
for someone not to step forward now and express interest and 
get our help.
    Ms. Meng. Right. And just to--I wanted to ask about the 
effects of the previous administration's public charge rule. 
And I know President Biden has rescinded the rule, but wanting 
to know what FNS is doing to regain the trust of immigrant 
families so they can continue to benefit. And is there any 
working done with nonprofits or translating materials into 
other languages to families who might not be aware of these 
changes?
    Ms. Dean. Congresswoman, I think that that notion of broken 
trust is very well put. We have a long way to go in terms 
restoring trust with immigrant communities on seeking out the 
benefits that they are eligible for. Let me take off a couple 
of quick things. We are meeting very regularly with other 
agencies, the White House, and the Department of Homeland 
Security to make sure we have got coordinated messaging ready 
to go. And I have already met with the heads of fracture, 
strength, Center on Budget, and Feeding America, sorry, on this 
very topic. It is of deep concern to all of us.
    And we won't just meet with them but many others. The idea 
is how do we get out good, clear, consistent messaging that 
immigrant and immigrant communities can count on, understand, 
and then start doing the work of inviting them back to use the 
programs that are there for them when they need them. So I----
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Dean. And thank you, Ms. Meng.
    At this time, I need to recognize Mr. Moolenaar, the 
gentleman from Michigan. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 
the testimony today.
    And, Ms. Dean, I wanted to talk with you a little bit. In 
your written statement, you talked about as schools across the 
country prepare for children to return this fall, we know that 
school meal operators need flexibilities to allow them to focus 
on serving high-quality nutritious meals without being 
overwhelmed by administrative challenges. And I talked about 
USDA making an announcement soon on flexibilities.
    I guess my question is I had a chance to talk with the 
Secretary about flavored 1 percent milk. And I come from a 
State that is strong in dairy, a district that is strong in 
dairy. And one of our goals is to have children, you know, 
using more dairy products. And flavored milk has been something 
that has been popular. You know, I would argue that it is 
nutritious. But I wanted to hear from you and get a sense for 
where you see this going. Because I think it is really 
important for our dairy producers to hear directly from you on 
that.
    Ms. Dean. Well, thank you. And as a U of M grad, glad to 
get your question from your area. So the school lunch meal 
standards are based on the dietary guidelines and which 
recommends nutrient-dense foods and beverages. And that is 
where our dairy standards come from.
    I previously mentioned--we did announce a whole slew of 
waivers for the coming school year. So just so you know about 
that. But as I mentioned, we are going to be going through the 
process of updating all of the standards in the school meals 
program to reflect the dietary guidelines. So that will be an 
opportunity for us to take a look at it and review dairy, and 
we certainly welcome your input.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Well, and I appreciate that because last 
week you know, the Secretary said, you know, if you go with the 
no fat milk, then kids don't drink it, and you lose the 
nutritional value than the nutrients that are in milk, the nine 
essential vitamins and nutrients and minerals. And he said he 
was going to encourage his team to take a look at the issue. 
And it doesn't make sense to have a standard that cuts off milk 
consumption.
    And he was looking for a standard that encouraged milk 
consumption, and so that we can get the benefits of that. And I 
am hoping that, you know, there will be--it seems that the 
waivers that were issued today appear today to be somewhat 
contrary to the Secretary's comments about, you know, in 
support of the nutritional value of that milk.
    And so I am hoping there can be some clarity. And I would 
ask, you know, for your input on it and your leadership on it. 
And I think just a clear message would be very important on 
this.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Congressman. We will be doing our best 
to communicate out what the waivers mean in the coming days. 
And I hope you will find it more responsive than perhaps the 
initial we suggest.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Thanks very much. Great to see you. 
And Go Blue.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you. Go Blue.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Moolenaar. At this 
time, I will be delighted to represent our frequent speaker pro 
temp, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure 
being with you. I want to ask Madam Deputy Under Secretary 
about colonias. Colonias are on the U.S.-Mexico border. There 
are hundreds of them. They are rural, unincorporated. And, in 
fact, if you look at some of the numbers, there is about a 145 
colonias communities in New Mexico, 114 colonia communities in 
Arizona, 34 colonia communities in California, and then there 
is 2,166 colonia communities in the State of Texas.
    Mainly in the southern part of Texas where we are seeing a 
lot of people coming in from Central America. Those areas, you 
know, they basically don't have water sewage, but they have 
persistent poverty levels which is limited job opportunities 
and high unemployment, and poor education.
    But my--and I asked Secretary Vilsack a couple of days ago 
to see if we can get somebody to get back to me, and I am 
asking you the same thing to see what we could do to address 
those areas, because it covers about approximately 2.5 million 
individuals on it.
    And so I am trying to figure out how the USDA and this 
committee can help 2.5 million individuals. A lot of it, of 
course, has to do also with food, whether they get that type of 
assistance. So I know that Jim Clyburn and other folks had 
pushed the, what we call the 10-20-30 efforts to make sure that 
we address the high poverty areas.
    When I asked my USDA folks down there and the folks down 
there, they were not even familiar with the 10-20-30 program. 
So my question is can you help us come up with a strategy to 
address within your field the 2.5 million individuals in the 
colonias?
    Ms. Dean. Yes, of course, we would be happy to discuss that 
with you. You know, I am familiar, not nearly as much as you 
with the colonias around Brownsville the opportunity to visit 
some of them, specifically, with how the WIC program was doing 
outreach directly to those communities. So it sounds like there 
is more, much more we can do and delighted to follow up with 
you and work with you.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much. And thank you for that.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. At this time, I am 
delighted to represent the gentleman from Washington, Mr. 
Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that 
very much. And thank you Under Secretary Dean for being with us 
today. I appreciate your testimony. This is an understatement, 
but we could say that last year was a huge challenge for many 
of us, and we all learned some lessons from the pandemic. 
Certainly, it is fair to say that our Federal and State, as 
well as local partners all came together to ensure that 
families in need during these uncertain times received much 
needed supplemental nutrition support with additional 
flexibilities in funding USDA, in my opinion, went above and 
beyond in order to get resources out the door as fast as 
possible, including, as we have talked about school-aged 
children, many of whom are still facing closed schools due to 
the pandemic.
    Food and nutrition service, obviously, was a critical 
component during this time. But I am sure for you there are 
still lots of challenges and issues ahead.
    Secretary Dean, the administration announced the end of the 
Farmers to Families Food Box Program, and certainly there are 
concerns with the program. But like I said, I think we should 
also give USDA a lot of credit for standing up a National Food 
Program in such a short amount of time and being so responsive.
    So one question certainly would be overall given the 
circumstances, would you say the program was successful? As I 
said, my understanding is USDA's currently, and you have 
mentioned working on a replacement program. Secretary Vilsack 
mentioned that last week in his testimony.
    But from what I have heard, a concern is raised that the 
replacement program will rely on the TFAP or the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program. And I know several States including my own 
at Washington, TFAP entitlement funds are usually about fully 
allocated, even in non-pandemic years, which could pose a 
funding problem for both TFAP and the new food box program.
    So we will have competing programs. And so if you could 
respond to that issue. But also TFAP regulations disqualify 
many nonprofit organizations, that previously received and 
distributed Farmers to Families food boxes.
    Another concern is that TFAP regulations limit the 
commodities eligible for purchase, for instance, dairy and meat 
products which were previously eligible for the boxes, may or 
may not be eligible for the new TFAP boxes.
    So, and to be fair, I was one of the critics of the 
program. We had to fight very hard to make sure many of the 
different specially-cropped products were included in these 
boxes to really represent diversity in our American 
agricultural industry.
    So, if you could just respond to some of those things. And, 
again, thank you very much for being with us.
    Ms. Dean. Well, thank you very much for having me here and 
your question. You know, look, I want to--I actually want to--
there were a lot of, what is the right word to say? There was a 
mixed experience with the food box program, but it is very 
important to acknowledge that my colleagues at AMS brought up a 
program during the middle of an extraordinary crisis in trying 
to meet the moment that it was in. And I really do salute them 
for that.
    And also for the thousands of nonprofit and charitable 
groups around the country who helped--who stood up to the 
moment and again helped distribute food to people who needed 
it. That was just really amazing. That and many other lessons 
along the way are the kinds of things we want to incorporate 
into what comes next. And what comes next can both be how we 
strengthen and improve what we already are doing, as well as 
deploying some of the remaining resources.
    So just briefly on the TFAP question, I think it is 
important to--I don't think about it just as TFAP but working 
with our partners in the emergency food bank network system. 
Like TFAP is a funding source. We actually do bonus 
commodities. There is a dairy donation. There was trade 
mitigation resources. There is a lot of--USDA really tries to 
find ways to support that system as a whole, TFAP just being 
one of our tools to do that.
    So as we look ahead, what can we do to offer some more 
flexibility as you are suggesting in the TFAP space, as well as 
bring other USDA resources to this incredibly efficient 
tremendous partner in the emergency food bank network. That is 
where--that is what we think is the next best step with respect 
to this kind of food distribution.
    So I appreciate your thoughts and would welcome your 
suggestions as we move forward.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Okay. Well, we will certainly be paying 
attention and also would welcome that continued back and forth 
so that we can make it as efficient and as representative of 
agriculture in this country as possible and get the most help 
to people that they actually need. So thank you.
    Ms. Dean. Those are shared goals. Thank you.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Ms. Dean. I 
think we have completed the first round, and I will begin a 
second round.
    Ms. Dean, The New York Times recently ran a story about the 
impact of the SNAP increase on families. And the story when a 
mother of two in Indianapolis got her 15 percent SNAP increase, 
she thought it was a mistake, and she was afraid she would get 
in trouble if she spent it. Instead, she skipped meals and used 
the food bank to get by. It was only when the reporter informed 
her that she was entitled to the increase that she used the 
money. This is, of course, very unfortunate, but too common. 
Can you speak to how the benefit changes are communicated to 
the recipients and how we can avoid problems like this going 
forward?
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was a very 
heartbreaking story of someone struggling so much and afraid to 
use the help that was offered to her, not trusting in it. So 
clearly we need to do more.
    The frontline communicators on a change like that are our 
State partners when they make a change, what we call mass 
change to benefits. We count on them to communicate to clients 
what is happening and why.
    I mean, to be fair, there have been a lot of changes. And I 
think it could be tough for participants just to keep up with 
what is going on. But clearly, we need to do better. We want 
families to use the resources that we are making available to 
them.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Let me ask you about the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition 
Program. That program like the WIC Farmers Market Program was 
popular with pretty much everybody, including Members of 
Congress. The committee asked for a report on the backlog on 
the seniors program, and we received a lot of useful 
information from USDA.
    The report said just in 2019 the backlog was $27 million 
against a program funding level of $20.9 million. The 
appropriation has not been increased since 2008. And with 
sequestration, because as a manager of program, even that low-
funding level got cut year after year. States in most cases cut 
the maximum benefit, and USDA has not been enable to increase 
the funding for individual States based on the performance or 
to add new participants such as the Virgin Islands.
    So can I get your views on that program, please, ma'am?
    Ms. Dean. Well, as you pointed out, it is very popular, and 
for good reason. Connecting participants to farmers' markets is 
powerful both for them and also for producers. So we want to do 
what we can to strengthen it.
    I am going to have to follow up with you on the particular 
details of that problem. And I am happy to do that with you or 
your staff. I am just not well-versed in what is causing that 
particular dilemma or problem.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, thank you. I have been very pleased to 
see the growth of the USDA online purchasing program. It is 
operating in 47 States and the District of Columbia. And, of 
course, we hear that it may become permanent in the next farm 
bill.
    But it is particularly important in rural areas, including 
my district where we have seen an exodus of grocery stores in 
the development of food deserts. What are the barriers to 
participation by smaller grocery stores? And what can we do 
incentivize that involvement? Because at this point it is 
dominated by large chains. Amazon, Walmart, in particular, and 
I am interested in getting small and medium-sized grocery 
stores into the program.
    Ms. Dean. As are we. And there are going to be who we 
target with the new funds provided to us through the American 
Rescue Plan. I think one of the biggest issues is whether they 
are already offering online shopping to the non-SNAP 
participants. So do they have that platform available to them?
    And then the second issue is, and I am sure you understand 
this, we have very rigorous security standards for how our 
benefits are used. And some small businesses may not--it may be 
a little extra step for them to stand up the kinds of 
requirements that we need.
    But we are available, we are providing technical 
assistance, and we want to see if we can offer different 
solutions to small business.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
    My time is almost expired. So at this point, I will yield 
to Mr. Fortenberry, our ranking member.
    Mr. Fortenberry, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A little bit of 
cleanup here. Ms. Dean, at several points in our hearing today, 
the issue of the food box has arisen. My own experience of 
reviewing it was again a program set up very rapidly to meet 
emergency food needs that stopped the waste of food and was 
very much appreciated because it was efficient and effective.
    I do think you owe an explanation, though, about what Mr. 
Valadao was pointing out as to the peculiarity as to why a 
public hearing for input on the effectiveness of the food bank 
box program was being held at the same time a parallel effort 
inside the Department to kill the program.
    Ms. Dean. Mr. Fortenberry, I am not sure I agree with your 
characterization. But I just do want to be clear, the listening 
sessions have been incredibly helpful to us as we try to glean 
what was most impactful, important, what dimensions of that 
program, and some of the flexibilities that USDA deployed 
there, what would work as we move forward to something new or 
different while it is a regular underlying program.
    Mr. Fortenberry. How would you characterize the initiative 
inside the Department to stop the program while public hearings 
were going on for feedback as to the effectiveness of the 
program? You can characterize it the way you want if you don't 
like mine.
    Ms. Dean. I think the listening sessions for--to help give 
us good information about what worked and what didn't both for 
the purposes of where we go next, and that is not just limited 
to the food box, the existence or nonexistence of the food box 
program. We at FNS gleaned incredibly useful lessons from those 
listening sessions that are relevant to any number of our 
programs.
    Mr. Fortenberry. I am pointing out the problem of costs 
that one soliciting input and feedback on the effectiveness of 
the program and clearly some other initiative, maybe it is 
outside your domain going on that would stop the program.
    Number two, we have all agreed that the rapid expansion of 
SNAP during the duress of the emergency of the pandemic was 
necessary. At its core, though, SNAP is a transitional program. 
Do we still accept that premise? I think this is very important 
because accepting persons with limited capacity or other 
inabilities to find meaningful employment. The traditional 
amount of time that a person has remained on SNAP has been 9 
months.
    Now again, that is pre-COVID and an older statistic. Are we 
still accepting the premise that this is a transitional program 
to meet nutritional needs in the midst of an emergency so that 
we can assist a person as they transition to meaningful work?
    Ms. Dean. I think for some participants that--and in fact 
the majority of the program is a temporary program. They use it 
when they lose their job, or their hours do down. And then when 
their wages go back and rebound, they don't need it anymore and 
don't use it. But there are some participants, low-income 
elderly, for example, their Social Security benefit that they 
start receiving, say, at 65 will--if it qualifies them for 
SNAP, we don't expect that their income will change for the 
rest of their life. And so they may be very long-term 
participants or individuals with disabilities.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah, that is why I pointed that out 
earlier, accepting persons in those circumstances.
    The other problem that we have to wrestle with is, frankly, 
there are a lot of people who are working and trying to string 
together enough means to stay afloat while who are also 
eligible for SNAP. God bless them. The idea of trying to again 
raise wages and raise opportunities in society is a significant 
one.
    But, again, our programatic intentionality is the premise 
of it, at least in the beginning was, except for those who have 
some capacity limitations, was either age or sickness, or again 
other types of incapacities be able to seek meaningful 
employment is that this is a transition.
    So as we look at expanding opportunities or changing the 
nature of the program, I think we have to hold in balance that 
initial idea. Because, ultimately, what is for a person's well-
being, it would provide for themselves and be a participant in 
the community through again finding that type of opportunity 
that is consistent with their needs and talents.
    Third is, can you give me the top three corporate retailers 
who redeem SNAP benefits?
    Ms. Dean. I can easily get back to you on that. I don't 
want to get them wrong, so why don't I just follow up.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I think this is important. Because 
as we are seeing more and more conglomerate corporate control 
of our economy, there is an incumbent responsibility on these 
major retailers that actually participate with us in pursuing 
the types of nutritional outcomes, the selection, if you will, 
so that that supply is actually there.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    At this time, I would like to recognize Dr. Harris if you 
have an additional question.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me 
just again, you know, following up on what Mr. Fortenberry has, 
you know, brought up. You know, I am a little concerned that 
the SNAP program is not also being utilized to do the 
nutritional, education, and provide nutritional foods. And I 
get it, there are a lot of big corporate interests that wanted 
to include sodas and snack foods, and things like that. But, 
you know, the purpose of that program should be--it should 
focus on nutrition.
    But let me talk just very briefly and ask about the 
electronic data matching for SNAP eligibility. Because I am 
told the improper payment rate is somewhere between 6 and 7 
percent. Clearly, when you are dealing with tens of billions of 
dollars, that is real money. And I know in fiscal year 2020, we 
have provided the food and nutrition service funding to begin 
evaluating the verification process of earned income for SNAP 
applicants using electronic data matching.
    First of all, can you speak to the value of using 
electronic data matching, both in terms of ensuring eligibility 
as well as reducing administrative costs and perhaps a status 
updates on the progress of the agency's evaluation and whether 
or not the pilot program has begun?
    Ms. Dean. Yes. Thank you very much for that question. So 
the more that we can use electronic verification of income or 
other core pieces of information to determine eligibility, the 
more accurate we can be, and, of course, the easier it is for 
clients. They don't have to go and find all these disparate 
pieces of information and turn them in.
    So that is really important. I fully support it. And I 
believe the grants project that you are mentioning we announced 
in March the availability of the grants. And so we will be 
waiting for those applications and are like you eagerly looking 
forward to what States come forward so that we can learn and 
continue to improve.
    Mr. Harris. Do you believe that this electronic matching 
might be able to lower the improper payment rates?
    Ms. Dean. Yes. Yes. That is the goal.
    Mr. Harris. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
will yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Harris.
    Mr. Valadao, you are now recognized for additional 
questions you might have.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In light of the sudden 
cancellation of the Families to Farmers to Food Program, I am 
heavily concerned that not only the U.S. producers who are 
providing nutritious food options for the boxes, but also the 
people in need for receiving food boxes that is critical that 
people who are facing food insecurity have adequate access to 
healthy food options.
    My understanding is there is a chance USDA does not 
reinstate food box program. There are still many individuals 
across the U.S. who are lacking successful healthy food 
options.
    In your testimony, you mentioned you are working to 
reevaluate Thrifty Food Plan to ensure or reflect the true cost 
of a basic healthy diet. Please expand on what specific actions 
you are taking as you reevaluate the Thrifty Food Plan?
    Ms. Dean. Sure. I would be happy to do that. So the 2018 
Farm Bill actually directs us to do that and sets forth several 
criteria. So one is to make sure that they reflect the most 
recent dietary guidelines; that to also take--sorry, we are 
supposed to reevaluate with respect to the dietary guidelines 
current consumer prices, prices for food, and I think consumer 
purchasing patterns. So we will be doing all of that.
    And we were also we are holding several stakeholder 
meetings. We are talking with experts to see what other 
dimensions and factors we should look at, and hoping to publish 
a reevaluation in the time so for everyone to take a look. I 
hope that was--I hope that was clear. Sorry.
    Mr. Valadao. Well, I appreciate that. And this is obviously 
a very important topic to me. I represent a particularly rural 
and low-income district. I just hope that you will focus--well 
I would like to commit to us here that you will keep us 
apprised as you move forward in the evaluation process.
    Ms. Dean. Very happy to do that.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you. And then to change topics a little 
bit, Ms. Dean. This morning, the Food and Nutrition Service, 
FNS, had made an announcement regarding the school meal 
flexibilities. Will the USDA follow through on the Secretary's 
comments and enacted, the enacted December 2020 provision to 
allow low-fat flavored milk in schools, particularly, during 
the school year 2021, 2022 procurement period, as well as more 
generally work with schools and their suppliers and the more 
reasonable approach to the sodium reduction targets?
    Ms. Dean. So with respect to the waivers that were offered 
today on dairy, the States have the ability to offer waivers to 
districts if the districts can demonstrate a need for a 
relaxation of the dairy standard that you mentioned related to 
the circumstances. So that will be available to them.
    And, then, I did mention earlier that we are going to be 
taking a look at the nutrition standards with respect to the 
most recent dietary guidelines. So that is an opportunity for 
us to update the standards, but also assess the timelines under 
the current regulations that schools are expected to hit those 
standards. We have had some disruption in rolling out the 
standards because of legislative and litigation holds, I guess, 
on the rollout. So it is a good moment for us to assess the 
timeline.
    Mr. Valadao. So you mentioned the school districts have the 
ability to apply based on a need. They have apply with the 
State? And who do they justify that need to? Does the State 
have to justify it to the Federal Government, or does the 
school have to do it with the States?
    Ms. Dean. I believe the way the waivers will work is the 
States elect to take the waiver, and then they work with the 
districts in their State.
    Mr. Valadao. So the Federal Government plays no role in 
deciding if there is a need for a waiver?
    Ms. Dean. Well, we set the terms and conditions. We are 
actually going to be doing that for congressional staff if they 
have a briefing this afternoon. So maybe that is a good 
opportunity for us to get into the details.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. Can we count on you to 
ensure the USDA follows through on allowing low-fat flavored 
milk in schools? I know it has been brought up earlier, but it 
is an important topic for a lot of us, particularly, during the 
school year 2021, 2022 procurement period, as well as more 
generally work with schools and their suppliers on a more 
reasonable approach to sodium production targets? Hopefully, we 
can address that a little bit as well but.
    Ms. Dean. Well, as I said, our waivers will be available on 
the dairy for the coming school year if they are needed by a 
district if they are not able to meet the standards. And beyond 
that, we will be taking a look at the standards to reflect the 
new guidelines and the timeline.
    So, again, I am happy to talk with you more about that.
    Mr. Valadao. Right. And I do appreciate the fact that the 
release was sent to us this time versus a news article that we 
read on the morning of the hearing. I mean, still the 
announcement being on the day of the hearing doesn't give us 
the proper amount of time to prepare for these types of 
questions. But, I at least appreciate the fact that you guys 
reached out to us versus the press first. So thank you for 
that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao. I believe we have come 
to the end of round two. I have one additional question, and I, 
of course, will yield to Mr. Fortenberry for any that he might 
have when I conclude.
    My question is regarding the Pandemic Electronic Benefit 
Transfer Program. As you know the 2021 school year, the USDA 
approved more than 14.1 billion in pandemic EBT benefits to 
16.8 million children in 34 States and Territories, which 
leaves a lot of States, including my State of Georgia that were 
not participating.
    Two weeks ago, there was an alarming article in Politico 
about the issues that are plaguing that program. PBT is a great 
program because it can reach families that may not qualify for 
SNAP benefits, and it can ensure that children are eating meals 
that they would have otherwise eaten at school. We need to make 
sure this program is working.
    One of the biggest bureaucratic hurdles that are slowing 
the disbursement of the money. What is USDA doing to help 
States overcome these hurdles? The Politico article noted that 
Secretary Vilsack has been calling Governors in States that 
haven't submitted the PDET plans to USDA. And can you tell us 
what you are hearing from the States? And do you think that the 
remaining States and Territories will, in fact, submit 
distribution plans? And if so, when are they expected? And will 
some States not be approved for the 2021 school year, which is 
fast dissipating.
    Ms. Dean. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. So, today, we are at 35 
States are approved for over 20 million children. But that is 
not enough. We need all States and Territories and with an 
improved plan. Because as you point out, this is an absolutely 
critical benefit to put resources into the hands of parents to 
help feed their children.
    You know, you asked me about the bureaucratic role, I would 
say, really the issue here is that the law appropriately 
requires that PEBT be targeted to children who are not 
attending school, because of the school closure. And so when we 
work with States, we say to them, you need to develop a 
Statewide list or some mechanism to match children who are 
eligible for free and reduced-priced meals to a school and to 
that school schedule.
    And the reality is that many States just simply don't have 
or collect that information. They just don't know school 
schedules at a Statewide level. So it has been a real challenge 
for them, but we have to ask them to meet the requirements of 
the law.
    We are doing everything we can to offer technical 
assistance, to provide flexibility, to allow them to make 
simplifying assumptions, but we do need them to hit the 
standard of the law. And we are leaning in. And just last week 
had a conversation with Georgia. Our goal is to make this 
happen in all States and Territories.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Dean. Let me now yield 
to Mr. Fortenberry, if you have any additional questions.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Only this one as regarding my last 
question. Ms. Dean, if you could get back to us regarding the 
top three retailers in the country for SNAP redemptions. I 
think that would be very helpful. Because what I am projecting 
here again is the idea of corporate responsibility.
    We are living in an era where there is more and more 
concentration in this type of retail, as well as in many other 
places. So to call upon those corporate giants who are greatly 
benefitting from government expenditures to maybe play some 
constructive role in terms of supply of the nutritious food as 
we begin to integrate these important shifts in our own public 
policy I think will be very important and beneficial. I would 
like your response to that, please.
    Ms. Dean. Yes, I am happy to follow up with you with that 
list.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Oh, but about the idea that I am 
projecting.
    Ms. Dean. Oh, I am sorry. Yes, I didn't realize there was a 
bigger question. Yes, of course. I think our--and I will say 
our retail partners are critical in the work that we do with 
the program. They are interacting with our participants each 
and every day and have a lot to say about shopping patterns, 
the needs and interests of participants.
    And so if we were to pursue a conversation about how best 
to address their nutritional needs through their stories, I 
think they would very much welcome the opportunity to have 
that----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry. And let 
me take this opportunity, Ms. Dean, Deputy Under Secretary Dean 
to thank you for your testimony today. We all understand how 
incredibly busy you are, and we thank you for your time and 
your patience this morning.
    The Food Nutrition and Consumer Services has an enormous 
responsibility that is made even greater by the pandemic 
administering the Nation's Nutritional Assistance Programs. It 
is vital that these programs are working efficiently and that 
they are reaching all eligible persons and households that are 
in need.
    I appreciate your hard work and the work of your entire 
staff to ensure that the most vulnerable among us do have 
access to food and a healthy nutritious diet.
    Along with what we have discussed, we will also forward 
additional questions for the record, and we will appreciate the 
diligence in getting your responses to us in a timely manner.
    Mr. Fortenberry, would you like to have any closing 
remarks?
    Mr. Fortenberry. No, other than again to thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for your leadership. I think it has been a productive 
hearing to unpack this significant portion of America's public 
policy of both expenditures but also impact.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    And let me thank all of the members in attendance and for 
the staff who put this hearing together.
    With that, this subcommittee meeting is now adjourned.

                                             Thursday, May 6, 2021.

                  USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT MISSION AREA

                               WITNESSES

JUSTIN MAXSON, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S. 
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
KARAMA NEAL, ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE, ON 
    BEHALF OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CHAD PARKER, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL HOUSING SERVICE, ON BEHALF OF 
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CHRISTOPHER McLEAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, ON 
    BEHALF OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    Mr. Bishop. This hearing of the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Related Agencies Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee is now called to order.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair and staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask if 
you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, the staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies.
    If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next 
member until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the 
balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired.
    When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I 
will begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set 
forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking 
member; then alternating between majority and minority members 
present at the time the hearing is called to order and will be 
recognized then in the order of seniority; and then, finally, 
members who are not present at the time the hearing is called 
to order will be called in the order of their appearance.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or our 
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to 
your staff.
    Last reminder. Please ensure that your video is turned on 
at this time.
    Good afternoon, and welcome to today's hearing on USDA's 
Rural Development Mission Area. Testifying before the 
subcommittee today is the Honorable Justin Maxson, the Deputy 
Under Secretary for Rural Development at USDA. Congratulations 
on your new role as Deputy Under Secretary.
    Mr. Maxson comes from the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation 
and has spent almost all of his career working in rural America 
addressing issues of poverty and of economic and racial equity 
and injustice.
    Under Secretary Maxson, you have a long history that 
demonstrates your passion and commitment for empowering rural 
communities and bringing equity, opportunity, prosperity, and 
enhanced quality of life for these areas, so many of which have 
been underresourced and neglected, thereby placing them at a 
distinct disadvantage as compared with many urban and suburban 
areas.
    It is evident throughout your career that you and I share 
the belief that no child or family in America should ever have 
the opportunity to realize their full potential limited or 
shunted because of the ZIP Code they happen to live in.
    Unfortunately, that is the case all across rural America, 
and the pandemic has made that plain. So I welcome you to our 
subcommittee today along with the current leaders of your Rural 
Development agencies, Dr. Karama Neal, Administrator of Rural 
Business Cooperative Service; Mr. B; and Mr. Christopher 
McLean, Acting Administrator of Rural Utilities Service.
    Under Secretary Maxson, you point out in your written 
testimony that Secretary Vilsack recently laid out for the 
subcommittee the Department's overarching priorities: 
containing the pandemic, promoting racial justice and equity, 
addressing the mounting hunger and nutrition crisis, rebuilding 
the rural economy, strengthening and building markets for 
farmers and producers, and addressing the impacts of climate 
change while building back better in rural America.
    But, Mr. Maxson, you really teed up the real importance of 
this hearing today and of the mission of the Rural Development 
Agency in the next paragraph of your testimony, which struck 
such a powerful and vibrant chord that I wanted to jump up and 
shout just like they do in the south Georgia Baptist church.
    I quote: When appropriately modernized and resourced, Rural 
Development's unique mission and incredible set of economic and 
community development tools play a critical role in advancing 
outcomes-based inclusive prosperity across rural America. We 
create jobs and help rural places build and maintain wealth 
within their communities. Rural Development helps to finance 
the building of critical community facilities, like schools, 
libraries, hospitals, and public safety buildings. We provide 
distance learning and telemedicine equipment, connecting 
underserved communities with educational opportunities and 
health professionals. Rural Development funds water and 
wastewater facilities, giving rural places clean and safe 
drinking water. We help to modernize and expand electricity and 
broadband connectivity to bring rural communities into the 21st 
century. We fund clean, renewable energy, and we are poised to 
help rural America lead the Nation in a biobased manufacturing 
revolution powered by the amazing productivity of American 
farmers and producers. We are well positioned to be a driving 
force for racial and spatial equity, reaching underserved 
communities and ensuring that rural communities have the same 
tools and resources and access as urban communities.
    Let the church say ``amen.'' Praise the lord. If only that 
were true. If only that were real. But, Under Secretary Maxson, 
Dr. Neal, Mr. Parker, Mr. McLean, we look forward today to your 
telling us how to make that real and to tell us how this 
subcommittee and the Congress can help you to do it.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to my ranking member, 
my friend and my partner in this endeavor, the gentleman from 
Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry, you are recognized now for your opening 
statement.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    First, let me deviate from my prepared remarks.
    I am so grateful as well for your partnership and 
leadership and the passion that you just showed. I wrote one 
thing down that you referenced: outcome-based inclusive 
opportunity in rural America. That is beautifully said.
    I am going to say it a little differently, but I think you 
know that we are all pulling in the same direction to achieve 
that very end. So, again, thank you for your passion and your 
excellent means of communicating this in the most human terms. 
I am really grateful, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Maxson, Dr. Neal, and Mr. Parker, and my fellow 
Nebraskan, Mr. McLean, good afternoon. Thank you for joining 
us.
    Let me say this from the outset. Our chairman, Chairman 
Bishop, has heard me say this many times. I think we need to 
update the term ``rural development.''
    And, Mr. Chairman, I should confess to you that I gave our 
crack Appropriations staff an assignment. I wanted to look back 
in the history books and find out when the term ``rural 
development'' began.
    The earliest reference that we can find to it was in 1902, 
but then it has been commonly used since the 1940s. And, 
clearly, it was a useful term in its heyday, but I do believe, 
in this era, when many people must leave the farm to seek 
better income or just to get health insurance, when two-thirds 
of rural communities--two-thirds of rural counties, I should 
say, have lost population just in this last decade, and, also, 
when new emerging opportunities for a regeneration of rural 
life are right around the corner, I feel that ``rural 
development'' is an inadequate term for the task at hand.
    So, instead of ``rural development,'' I am going to, once 
again, propose the idea that we use the phrase ``ecosystem of 
rural livability,'' and here is why. Life in rural America is 
not just an economic proposition. It is a values proposition. 
We are embracing meaningful work, sacrificing, risking now for 
a future return, and connecting to the land and to one's 
neighbor are the defining characteristics of so much of 
America. And it is this land and all the land that embodies--
that is the heart of the rural values proposition.
    Our farmers and ranchers are its chief and most exemplary 
representatives, transferring their land to the next generation 
of family farmers and starting to fully participate in this 
exciting new world of telework and telehealth and precision 
agriculture, distance learning, and global e-commerce, as well 
as nurturing beginning farmers. And that is the way.
    Mr. Chairman, I like the story--the Brugger brothers came 
back to the family farm in Nebraska after they had spent time 
at the university here in Lincoln and graduated. These young 
men could be a reality TV show. I hope you meet them one day, 
Mr. Chairman.
    They had noticed that their local bar in town had closed. 
So they started growing their own hops and using excess feed 
for whiskey. They even purchased the local bar. Remember, they 
have a traditional production rural crop farm. They purchased 
the local bar so that their friends and families didn't have to 
drive so far for some good entertainment. They brought local 
life back to their rural community because they understood it 
is an ecosystem of livability.
    They added value, and they profited from it. So it is the 
vertical integration of this kind that puts value in the value 
chain, where it belongs: in the farmers' pocket and toward 
community flourishing.
    So, gentlemen, as your agencies help us rebuild rural 
America, I believe they need a rebuild of their own. The 
Federal Government runs 90 programs administered by 16 
different Federal agencies targeted at rural economic 
development, and you have the official lead. To my knowledge, 
there is no overarching framework to guide rural policy at the 
Federal level.
    So, finally, let's speak about the possibility of enhanced 
rural broadband. We throw a lot of money at it, but do we 
really know what we are getting? When the inspector general, at 
our chairman's request, appeared before the subcommittee 
earlier this year, I asked, how do we measure broadband 
success?
    She said, ``I don't know.''
    I think we need to change that equation.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, distinguished panelists, creating this 
system of--ecosystem of rural livability means not only 
focusing on wires laid or loans given or housing subsidized but 
on how measuring real-world human impacts of these essential 
investments in rural America are faring. So let's make--let's 
work hard together to make those determinations.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Maxson, without objection, your entire written 
testimony will be included in the record, and I will now 
recognize you for your statement, and then we will proceed with 
questions.
    You are now recognized, Mr. Maxson, for your opening 
remarks.
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate both the comments of Mr. Fortenberry and 
members of this committee. It is an honor to be here today.
    Let me start out by telling you a little bit about myself.
    Before I came to the USDA, I spent 6 years running a 
foundation advancing economic opportunity and racial equity in 
the American South. And, 15 years before that, I did community 
economic development in Appalachian Kentucky. And Rural 
Development was a key partner in that work.
    I am so glad to be--excuse me--at Rural Development. I 
share a deep commitment to helping people and communities 
realize their economic vision and a high quality of life.
    When Secretary Vilsack was here a few weeks ago, he shared 
a set of key priorities that cut across our work. They include 
but aren't limited to containing the pandemic and promoting 
racial equity, addressing the impacts of climate change, 
tackling the mounting hunger crisis, and rebuilding the rural 
economy.
    We believe that Rural Development has the programmatic 
tools and mission to make major contributions around those 
priorities. The budget in front of us builds on our key 
programs and expands them, acknowledges there are things that 
RD can and should do better, and it helps us make real progress 
on our mission to promote economic prosperity for all.
    At RD, we recognize that rural America is not monolithic. 
It has impressive economic and racial and cultural and 
geographic diversity. When thinking about the rural economy 
alone, only 20 percent of rural counties are farming dependent, 
and manufacturing, government, recreation, and mining 
dependence each separately claim 10 to 15 percent of those--
excuse me--of those counties. And the final third of rural 
counties are not reliant on any one industry.
    So, obviously, rural America has got diverse needs, and its 
communities and people reflect a diverse vision of what they 
want, and we are working hard to be flexible and meet 
communities where they are.
    I think Rural Development has got some unique strengths. We 
have an impressive history of innovation, sharing the right 
things at the right time. I think the Reconnect Program for 
broadband has the potential to do for people and communities 
what the Rural Electrification Program did, spread a life-
changing innovation at a critical time.
    We are also extremely locally focused with a network of 450 
offices with boots on the ground across the country. And we 
bring, of course, as you all know, a broad array of programs 
that meet communities where they are, from the small business 
support to housing, from water and sewer to broadband, and 
reliable and affordable electricity infrastructure.
    The budget also recognizes that RD can do more, that we can 
be better. We have a great staff, but we need more of that 
staff, and soon. Our portfolio is more than twice as large as 
it was only 10 years ago with a staff that is 30 percent 
smaller. And, in 3 years' time, one-third of that staff is 
eligible for retirement.
    Some of our local partners and our communities report our 
programs can be difficult to access and are narrow, sometimes 
out of date, and too many times it is the better-resourced 
communities that are the most successful at accessing our 
support, and that is just not good enough. We want to help 
everyone in rural America thrive, particularly the communities 
in the most need.
    This budget aims to advance the priorities of the 
administration and deepen our ability to carry out RD's 
important work. It provides us with additional resources to 
expand access to broadband, increases our ability to deliver 
water and sewer infrastructure, allows us to better support our 
rural electric co-op partners and providing clean and 
affordable electricity, and it enables us to expand and better 
coordinate our USDA boots on the ground and partner with other 
Federal development agencies and provide deeper support to the 
communities in the most need.
    My short time at RD, I have been incredibly impressed by 
the quality of our staff, the breadth of our programs, and the 
scale of our investment. In 2020 alone, RD invested more than 
$40 billion across the country. Thank you for making that 
possible.
    I know that when RD's programs are implemented in the 
communities in the most need, impactful change is evident and 
unforgettable. I look forward to working with the subcommittee 
and answering any and all questions that you might have.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Maxson.
    We will now proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier, 
we will begin with the chair and ranking member; then 
alternating majority and minority with members present at the 
time the hearing starts in the order of seniority; after that, 
I will recognize members not present at the time of the 
hearing--at the beginning of the hearing. And each member will 
have 5 minutes in each round, so please be mindful of your 
time.
    I will now recognize myself for the first round of 
questions.
    Mr. Maxson, you stated in your testimony that the Rural 
Development portfolio is 10 times larger than it was a decade 
ago and that your staff is not as great as is needed to achieve 
the mission.
    You know what the problem is in terms of staffing. Do you 
have a specific plan, and is it included in the budget a 
specific plan to address these staffing shortages?
    And I will follow that with a capacity-building question 
regarding our rural communities because it is often difficult 
for the underserved rural communities to apply for government 
grants and loans due to capacity constraints. They simply don't 
have the staff or the resources to manage this process. I have 
seen this in my own congressional districts, and I have heard 
it from other Members.
    So, through the delivery of technical assistance, we can 
really build that capacity through training and support on 
specific issues unique to their circumstances.
    Do you agree with that? Do we, both Congress and the 
administration, need to do more in this space, and what do you 
think we can do to help create that capacity in our rural 
communities so that they can access the resources that Rural 
Development has and that USDA has for them?
    Mr. Maxson. Sir, I appreciate that. In fact, I appreciate 
the two questions, as I actually think they are--at least in my 
mind, they are related.
    On the staffing front, obviously our field structure is, I 
think, a real important aspect of what makes RD a unique player 
in this space. We obviously see that more staff on the ground 
are one of the ways that we can actually help provide capacity, 
that we can lean into the provision of assistance.
    We have got key partnerships in a number of our programs 
where some of those partners are on the ground and help provide 
technical assistance to communities.
    I think we believe additional staff are one of the ways 
that we can help go even farther and serve communities that 
aren't easily able to access our programs. Obviously, I think 
we see our salary and expense levels as one key way the 
committee can support staff as that obviously pays for the 
boots on the ground.
    There are also some program design concerns, like in the 
Reconnect Program. That is designed in such a way that we can 
use some of those funds to support administrative costs and 
other implementation expenses, including our staff, including 
that sort of important technical assistance that helps build 
capacity on the ground.
    So those are a couple of ideas. I think we are looking 
carefully at ways that we can expand our staff. The StrikeForce 
Initiative described in the budget itself is an opportunity to 
both support staff at RD and other development agencies that 
are working in the rural space and make us think more 
thoroughly about how we collaborate together.
    And just the last thing I will say, we share your 
commitment to capacity building, that figuring out ways that 
our staff and others can help build the capacity of local 
organizations, of small towns is just critical to our ability 
to meet the needs that those communities have. And we are--we 
recognize programs like the Rural Partnership Program and the 
American Jobs Plan is a critical tool to help communities 
access the sort of resources that they need to have the 
sophistication and the skill necessary to access some of our 
other programs.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Maxson.
    And, at this time, although my time has not yet expired, it 
has about expired; I will be happy to yield to my ranking 
member, Mr. Fortenberry, for any questions that he might have 
at this time.
    Mr. Fortenberry, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Maxson, you didn't respond to my proposal about the 
ecosystem of livability. I would like to hear your opinion on 
that.
    But let me go ahead with a little more direct question 
first for you.
    What is the USDA doing to coordinate--to work with other 
parts of the Federal Government, I should say, to coordinate 
rural broadband efforts?
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that question, sir.
    I am fascinated by your proposal. I think ``rural 
livability'' is a really interesting phrase, and I think it 
reflects the actual complication of attempting to do this work. 
So I would love to follow up with you and have a longer 
conversation. I think economic concerns are key but not 
sufficient to meet the challenges that the rural communities 
experience.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, if I could interject right quick, 
the reason--we tend to default to economic terms because we can 
measure it. The harder, more subjective aspects of livability 
and well-being are harder to put a number on, but then we 
translate language that really is inhuman, and what we are 
talking about here is the most human of things: well-being, 
opportunity, solidarity, being able to enjoy the pastoral 
quality of life, which really is the hallmark of America. So 
this is why I proposed it. So I am happy that you responded 
generously. Thank you. But the next--go ahead.
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you. I think I would like to ask Acting 
Administrator McLean to address the way we collaborate around 
broadband.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
    Mr. McLean. Well, yes. Thank you very much. The RUS has 
been working with the Federal Communications Commission and the 
National Telecommunications Information Administration. We have 
regular meetings with each other. We have an initiative that is 
called the American Broadband Initiative. You know, we share 
information. We share data. We share our mapping information 
with each other and coordinate our programming to make sure 
that we don't overlap, and we sequence our work together.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Great. What is the outcome of that 
coordination? Right now, I think it is fair to say that we have 
fragmentation, and the outcome obviously we are striving for is 
enhanced accessibility and affordability. Those are the key 
metrics. So speak to the outcome of the deliberations, not just 
the process, and as it lends itself toward enhanced 
accessibility and affordability, please.
    Mr. McLean. Sure, absolutely.
    And, of course, the core vision of our program is to be 
able to use our affordable financing, and with the great 
support of this committee, the Reconnect Program, which, for 
the last several years has committed meaningful grant dollars 
to the RUS program to be able to bring broadband to where it 
hasn't been before.
    And so an example of that coordination is RUS loan programs 
frequently leverage the universal service support mechanisms of 
the Federal Communications Commission. We take into account the 
RDOF, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, funding opportunities 
that the FCC has made in terms of how we structure our 
programs, and we do work together to make sure we don't 
overlap.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Let me interject. I am sorry. My time is 
going to run out shortly.
    So give us a metric of progress. Can you give us a metric 
of progress? Remember, in my opening statement, I asked 
inspector general how are we measuring the effectiveness of 
this, and she couldn't answer it. This is not a judgment or an 
indictment of her. It is just simply that we have to work 
harder on the metrics of success.
    Mr. McLean. Sure. Well, I think one of the most fundamental 
metrics of success is the delivery of broadband services to 
where it wasn't before. And that is where you have to start. 
You have to deliver the infrastructure so that communities can 
take advantage of that infrastructure.
    And we see that right away. We see that in the job 
creation. We see that in healthcare opportunities. We see that 
in educational opportunities.
    The pandemic has given us an incredible research 
opportunity but also comparable examples of what happens when 
you don't have broadband.
    Mr. Fortenberry. That is right. I am going to interrupt 
you--I am sorry--because I only have 15 seconds left. That is 
exactly the point. I think we have made a digital leap in the 
pandemic, but it also, in addition to creating huge 
opportunities for us, it helps us identify the weak spots. I 
think we need----
    Mr. McLean. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. To come back--I think we need 
to come back to this question, so I will yield back to the 
chairman now. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    At this time, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from 
Maine, Ms. Chellie Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for 
holding this hearing.
    And congratulations, Mr. Maxson. I am very excited to see 
you in this role, and I know that the great depth of experience 
that you have had working in rural communities will serve Rural 
Development very well. So thank you for being there with us 
today--being here with us today.
    I think, because we are all talking about broadband, you 
will quickly note that it is a very bipartisan interest on this 
committee. It, you know, sort of stretches to all geographies, 
and, frankly, each of us claims that our district is the worst 
served by broadband, but mine is. Mine is. Mine is 49th in the 
country in access and 49th in the country for speed. And we 
occasionally move up the list, so--but we are always close to 
the bottom.
    So I want to dig in on a few of the details since we are 
really talking about it, and one of my concerns is, in our 
State, about the smaller communities that are so anxious to get 
access to broadband. And you used a phrase that I really 
appreciated. That was better resourced communities shouldn't be 
the only ones who have access to rural development programs.
    Very few communities in Maine have a town planner on their 
staff. We have lots and lots of small communities. And so they 
don't really have the capacity to be able to apply for some of 
the grants or jump through some of the hoops that are 
necessary. And they are often served by small ISPs who are 
trying very hard to get the connection to rural parts of their 
State.
    So I have a couple of parts to this. I am interested to 
know how you conceive that Rural Development could work, 
particularly through the Reconnect Program, to support smaller 
grantees and if it would ever be possible, for instance, to 
have projects under $5 million have a little bit less of a 
challenge?
    And I just want to use an example that I recently learned. 
So there are three communities in our State that were awarded 
funding through Reconnect in January of 2019. They have been 
following the guidelines, but two of those three are not 
expected to connect a single resident until spring of 2023. 
So--but that is a long, slow build.
    We compared it to some of the projects that were funded 
through our State using the CARES Act funds, and they are going 
to be completing in 8 to 12 months. So I am not completely sure 
what the big differences are, but I think it is a good example 
that gives us a chance to try to understand how do we make this 
workable and not only available to larger communities with, you 
know, big staffs and resources to jump through the hoops.
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that.
    So two quick facts, and then I would like to ask, again, 
Chris McLean--after 103 days, I don't have that much detail, 
and that was a very detail responsive----
    Ms. Pingree. I understand.
    Mr. Maxson. A hundred percent, we believe that we are 
committed to doing everything we can to spread truly high-speed 
broadband to 100 percent of the country, and I think that 
American Jobs Plan identifies the scale of resources necessary 
to make that happen.
    And I will ask Acting Administrator McLean to pick up from 
there.
    Mr. McLean. Yeah, well, thank you. Yeah, thank you very 
much, and thank you for that question because one of the--one 
of the great benefits of the Reconnect funding formula that 
this committee and the Congress has provided is the 7-percent 
solution, which the Acting Under Secretary has referenced. In 
other words, that you gave us 7 percent of our funding to be 
able to put to outreach and technical assistance and 
administrative support.
    One of the things we are doing with that--those resources 
is trying to build an application system that is customer 
friendly so that you can apply for Reconnect funds and minimize 
the levels of mistakes or errors so that you could stay in the 
game.
    Another thing that we have done this year is we did a 
second chance on our second round of funding so that we could 
take a deeper look at those projects that were really close but 
needed a little bit more effort to be able to get it across the 
finish line.
    And then one of the guiding principles we have--and, again, 
thank you from the bottom of our heart for providing meaningful 
grant support to this mission because then we can use grant 
dollars and target them to the communities that need it the 
most, and that is really the key to be able to help 
underresourced communities because when our portfolio was only 
a small grant program in Community Connect and loan dollars, 
that missed a large number of communities that needed more 
help.
    So that ability to be able to take grants to the most needy 
areas, loan-grant combos to those in the middle, and loan only 
to those that can afford it seems to be a good--a good pathway 
for us forward, but I agree absolutely with you and the Acting 
Under Secretary that we do need to be able to focus both 
technical assistance and outreach to those communities, those 
small communities. They are absolutely right.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much. I am out of time, but I 
appreciate your thoughts on that, and we might follow up with a 
couple more of the specifics just so we can better understand 
where the challenges are, but thank you. I appreciate it, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. McLean. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
    At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. 
Harris.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and welcome, Mr. Maxson.
    A couple of issues. First, the Community Facilities Loan 
and Grant Program, very important in my district, as many rural 
districts, because important facilities, such as hospitals and 
fire departments, use this. In my district, East New Market 
Volunteer Fire Department, for instance, has one of these 
loans.
    But they are frustrated because interest rates are now at 
generational lows, but they are having a problem refinancing 
this because they don't--they are uncertain, first of all, 
whether USDA can refinance them through the USDA, or whether or 
not they can go through a private refinance, or do they need 
the permission of USDA to refinance and take advantage of these 
low rates?
    As you know, these volunteer fire departments are 
financially hurting because of COVID, their inability to raise 
money, and this would substantially help them financially.
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that question. I am going to ask 
Acting Administrator Parker, who is a specialist in the CF 
program.
    Mr. Parker. Thank you, Congressman, for that question, and 
I appreciate the committee support of the Community Facilities 
Direct Loan Guarantee and Loan Grant Program.
    There is a priority to refinance projects under our 
Community Facilities Guaranteed Loan Program where a private-
sector lender would come in and make a loan and USDA would put 
a Community Facilities guarantee on that loan. Typically those 
rates are not as low as our Community Facilities Direct Loan 
interest rates.
    We do not have the authority presently available in order 
to offer refinancing under the Community Facilities Direct Loan 
Program unless it is less--the refinancing is less than 50 
percent of the total project cost. So, if they were doing some 
other construction or an expansion, we could go in and 
refinance a portion of that loan.
    They don't need USDA permission to come in and refinance 
with a private-sector lender. They would just present us with a 
payoff at that time.
    Thank you for the question, sir.
    Mr. Harris. Okay. No. Thank you very much.
    And because broadband is obviously--it is a broad--widely 
bipartisan interest in that, we do have providers in the 
Broadband Initiative Program who have taken advantage of--who 
have applied and have actually gotten awards, but they have 
expressed their--some of them expressed their frustration with 
the administrative burden that accompanies receiving the funds.
    Their complaints to my office include outdated contract 
language, overly prescriptive auditing and cost justification 
requirements, as well as the process just generally being slow 
to the point of discouraging some of the providers from 
participating in the program.
    While I do appreciate clearly, you know, thoughtful and 
diligent stewardship of taxpayer dollars is always important, I 
am sensitive to some of their complaints. So are you aware of 
that type--those types of issues with some of the providers 
who, in fact, have these contracts to provide broadband 
service?
    Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir, absolutely. We take seriously the 
concerns of our partners who are recipients of our--of these 
resources and are doing everything we can to make the 
application and their reporting process as smooth as possible.
    Let me ask Administrator McLean. He may have a couple more 
specifics that he can share there.
    Mr. McLean. Yeah. Thank you very much, Congressman. Your 
point is very well taken.
    We are vigilant, I will say, with our supervision of the 
funds. We take great pride in the fact that we can pretty much 
check every penny that is expended. And not every Federal 
program can do that, even every Federal broadband program can 
do that, because we are infrastructure-oriented. And so, yes, I 
understand, and we took special care during COVID to be careful 
about that burden we are putting on our borrowers and our 
awardees.
    But, yes, we do understand, and we are trying to make that 
as customer-friendly as possible.
    And, in terms of the pace of approval, these programs are 
very, very popular, and they are very competitive, and we have 
oversubscription, so we have to carefully weigh the projects, 
display them against each other, and be able to work to make 
sure that they are successful. And we do want to minimize the 
administrative burden. But, at the same time, we don't want to 
let down our guard on vigilance with taxpayer dollars because 
these are serious undertakings.
    And, again, thanks to the help of this committee, these are 
substantial awards.
    Mr. Harris. All right. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Mark Pocan.
    Mr. Pocan, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
    And thanks to our witnesses.
    I guess, in this committee, or probably maybe in Congress, 
if it is a day ending in Y, it is broadband day, because we all 
want to talk about broadband.
    So, as one of the founders of the Rural Broadband Caucus--
bipartisan caucus, by the way--you know, I live in a rural town 
of 800-some people, just got broadband 3 years ago. We had a 
satellite prior to that where I was paying an ungodly amount to 
ensure I would be connected.
    One of the issues with trying to get this investment that 
we are trying to put into broadband that the President is 
proposing and through Reconnect is that many local communities 
and States have barriers that make it harder to get the dollars 
out. They don't allow municipalities to do their own broadband.
    Can you talk for a second about the difficulty it is in 
getting Reconnect out when some of the utilities in local 
communities have these local barriers and what we might be able 
to do to get around those?
    Mr. Maxson. If you would, Chris?
    Mr. McLean. Sure. I would be delighted to.
    One of the things that we have encouraged in the Reconnect 
structure is a level of consultation at the State and local 
level, and we want to encourage States to be able to remove 
those barriers. Of course, as a Federal agency, you know, we 
are a lender, a funder. We don't have preemption authority over 
State rules regarding what municipalities can and cannot invest 
in.
    But we have seen across the country that, you know, 
municipal utilities are an incredibly powerful force to bring 
infrastructure to rural America. In fact, our entire water 
program is based on municipal investment.
    And so it is a model that works. We support it. We invest 
in cooperative nonprofit entities and for-profit entities, as 
well as municipal and Tribal communities and welcome that, and 
we welcome States opening up their authority so that--so that 
we can find the right partner to solve this--solve the riddle 
of broadband deployment.
    Mr. Pocan. Well, thank you for that.
    And, you know, let me do a followup from Mr. Harris' 
question also on the Reconnect funds. So we have heard that, 
you know, sometimes that application process can be slow. We 
had one applicant who waited well over a year before finding 
out they were receiving a Reconnect award, getting the first 
construction permit approved.
    Just wondering if there is things that we can do to make 
that application process a little more maybe user friendly and 
get those dollars out faster?
    Mr. McLean. Yeah. Well, thank you. I will echo what the 
Acting Under Secretary said. Investment in technology and 
investment in staffing will help speed the processing along.
    What we have done with that 7-percent solution I told you 
about earlier in the Reconnect award is--and that is by the 
design from Congress in how they are able to use those funds, 
and we appreciate that--we are building the most modern of our 
input--intake systems using those Reconnect funds to try to 
make it easier to apply.
    Now, in Reconnect, we make the award first, and then we go 
into the environmental review. Usually, it has been opposite, 
where we do the environmental review, then you go to the 
underwriting. But, in order to speed the obligation process and 
so that applicants can be assured that they were getting the 
funding they needed in order to go through that environmental 
review, we made the award subject to the approval.
    And COVID, frankly, has slowed that down a little bit as we 
had to get, you know, more time to have consultations with 
State historic preservation offices and Tribal historic 
preservation offices. And, as the end of COVID is in sight, we 
are hoping that that will be able to speed up as well as adding 
to the capacity of our ability to process.
    Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you.
    And 45 seconds left. Mr. Maxson, I am going to ask you a 
big question, but, as you know, there is a lot of consolidation 
going on in agriculture. You know, 85 percent of the U.S. beef 
market is four companies. Wondering what rural development 
could do to combat that increasing power those giant 
agribusinesses are having on my rural constituents.
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that question.
    We think small businesses are critical. There are a range 
of tools that can support them with the sort of flexible 
capital that small businesses need to get ahead, from grants 
through the value-added producer grant to loans through the IRP 
program to other things.
    USDA, as a whole, is taking on this question with real 
appreciation and a range of tools aimed at helping local food 
systems accelerate.
    Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    At this time, I recognize Mr. Valadao of California.
    Mr. Valadao, you are now recognized for your questions.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity.
    I want to make sure that I don't distract too much away 
from the broadband issue because that is a huge issue for all 
of us, and I think that is--and I appreciate all my colleagues 
bringing that up, but I do need to bring something up that is 
just a little bit different.
    I have been meeting with folks all over my district over 
the past few weeks, and because of this ongoing pandemic, many 
constituents are not able to pay their utility bills, and this 
is creating a huge burden, especially on my community service 
districts.
    Some of these small communities, I met with one just 
yesterday--very small community, and their normal delinquent 
rate is--dollar amount is about $2,000, and they are up to 
$20,000. Some that were normally around $200,000 are up to 
$600,000. And so obviously for these community districts to be 
able to service the communities, provide water, sewage, it is 
already difficult enough. You add in the fact that these guys 
are seeing double, triple, and sometimes even 10 times the 
amount of delinquency. Then, when we get into the process of 
applying for grants or other types of resources, this big of a 
hole in their budget makes it more difficult for them to come 
up with matching funds.
    Do you have any plans to be able to help these community 
service districts, cities, counties, and others who are 
struggling with this, and how do you plan to address it?
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you. It is a great question.
    We have spent significant time trying to understand the 
conditions in which these districts find themselves. It is 
painful and important that we figure out the right tools.
    Again, I am going to ask Acting Administrator McLean to 
share his thoughts on this as he has been closest to these 
conversations.
    Mr. McLean. Yes. Thank you very much.
    And, as a lender, of course, we are equally concerned about 
that issue of delinquent accounts. And we expect that to return 
to a more normal level post-pandemic, so we see this as a 
transitory problem at the moment.
    For individual consumers, it is a very serious issue, and 
in the Rescue Act, there were several resources that were made 
available for consumers: enhanced funding for Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance programs. The Department of Treasury has a 
homeowners' assistance program that has among its authorities 
the ability to be able to help pay utility bills.
    And we work with our borrowers, and many of them have 
programs that they have adopted themselves to be able to help 
consumers through that crisis.
    Where we have a utility that is affected by a liquidity 
crunch, as you say, we do have some tools available to be able 
to help them get over this hump of the pandemic. We do still 
believe that they are fundamentally strong and will be able to 
endure this.
    And I don't have any--in the Utilities Program, we don't 
have any specific programs that are directed towards 
individuals, but to the extent we can work with our utility 
borrowers to extend grace to those troubled consumers, we are 
absolutely all in and helping them.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. I look forward to that. That is 
something I will have my staff reach out to yours to make sure 
that, whatever is available, we are able to help provide 
because, in so many situations, the folks that are 
administering the community service districts were telling me 
that there are programs out there, but a lot of times it 
requires the constituent to actually fill out the documentation 
and do some of the work, and they are not even willing to do 
that, and so it puts these community service districts in a 
really bad spot. And so they look for grant opportunities. Any 
capital that they might possibly have has been eaten up by 
this, and it just puts them in a terrible bind.
    Mr. McLean. Yeah, absolutely. And we get those 
heartbreaking messages from individual consumers that can't pay 
their bills. First, we refer them to the utility who may have 
programs available, and then to the State agencies that are 
administering programs like LIHEAP. And LIHEAP also has some 
availability to help on water utilities as well.
    Mr. Valadao. So LIHEAP does have the opportunity to help 
with some of the water utilities when it comes to----
    Mr. McLean. Yes, I believe so.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Perfect. Thank you.
    I have got more questions, but I will wait until the next 
round since I only have 30 seconds. So, Mr. Chairman, I will 
yield back. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    And, at this time, I am delighted to yield to the 
gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Lauren Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. You have 5 minutes, Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
our witnesses for joining us today.
    One of the counties in my district, much of which is rural, 
has no inpatient hospital within the county lines, which means 
that, during this pandemic, the county's ICU capacity has been 
zero.
    Even before the coronavirus pandemic, these communities 
faced critical healthcare shortages, including a lack of mental 
and behavioral health services, facilities, and professionals. 
These access gaps have been especially concerning as our 
communities grapple with the opioid epidemic and other 
substance-use disorders.
    Mr. Maxson, can you describe the barriers rural communities 
face when attempting to finance healthcare facilities and 
infrastructure and what the rural development agencies are 
doing to address these barriers both independently and in 
coordination with agencies like the Department of Health and 
Human Services or other Federal partners?
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you for your question.
    There are so many reasons that rural healthcare is 
critical, as you obviously know. The health of local residents 
as economic engines that create jobs and help provide a high 
quality of life, we have taken seriously, particularly over the 
last several years their health, economic health. The Community 
Facilities Program grant, loan, and guarantee has been 
particularly focused on health facilities.
    If I could ask Acting Administrator Parker, he has 
specialized in healthcare facilities.
    Mr. Parker. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman 
Underwood. Very much appreciate the committee's support of our 
rural healthcare facilities.
    We often hear from them about workforce shortages inside 
the rural areas, lack of training and capacity, bypassing the 
rural healthcare facility to go to a more urban facility----
    Ms. Underwood. Right.
    Mr. Parker [continuing]. Causing a lack of patients there--
--
    Ms. Underwood. If we could just talk about the solutions, 
sir. I am sorry. We have limited time. What are you all doing 
to address this?
    Mr. Parker. Yes, ma'am.
    So we have both our Community Facilities Direct Loan and 
Grant Program--48 percent of our portfolio is invested in rural 
healthcare facilities. We also appreciate what the committee 
has recently given us, the emergency Rural Healthcare Grant 
funding that provided $500 million in funding to address 
health-related facility--testing and vaccine facilities, also, 
related to the pandemic.
    So we are working very quickly to be able to get out a 
funding notice and make those funds available to rural 
communities that are in need of healthcare solutions.
    Ms. Underwood. And outside of the COVID environment, have 
you all been working with HHS on this issue?
    Mr. Parker. Yes, we partner with HHS, especially the Health 
Resources and Services Administration. We have a number of 
stakeholders--the National Health Association, the National 
Health Clinic Association--that we work closely with.
    Ms. Underwood. Okay. If there are any actions that we can 
take in Congress to support USDA's actions in that area, we 
will go ahead and submit a QFR for that, and if you all could 
respond in writing, that would be great.
    I look forward to continuing the dialogue on how we can 
support the rural healthcare needs. It is so important not only 
for the health of our rural communities but for the economy and 
the job market in those areas, as you mentioned.
    Now, during his confirmation hearing, Secretary Vilsack 
stated that biofuels should be part of the effort to reduce 
carbon emissions on our path to net-zero by 2050, and I know 
that many corn growers in my district were heartened by those 
statements. The biofuel market is absolutely critical for 
farmers in my district and the economy of Illinois.
    In recent years, we have seen that it has been especially 
tough, given the Trump administration's abuse of small refinery 
waivers and the disruptions caused by the pandemic.
    So this is for Mr. Maxson or Dr. Neal. The White House's 
skinny budget and the American Jobs Plan don't currently have a 
lot of details on biofuels infrastructure. Can you elaborate on 
your role, at least within the agency, around biofuel programs 
and USDA's and the administration's climate strategy?
    Mr. Maxson. Yes. Thank you for that.
    I will just really quickly say, in the American Jobs Plan 
there is $15 billion, a large chunk of which is aimed at the 
biobased product loan guarantee program, 9003, which aims to 
support the commercialization of biobased products.
    I am not privy to how much of that $15 billion will be 
aimed at 9003, but I believe the Secretary is very serious when 
he says biofuels and biobased products have got to be part of 
our long-term set of climate solutions.
    Ms. Underwood. Okay. So is that something that your office 
is involved with, or no?
    Mr. Maxson. Yes, ma'am. Very much so.
    Ms. Underwood. Okay. Thanks.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
    At this time, I recognize Mr. Moolenaar, the gentleman from 
Michigan.
    You are now recognized, Mr. Moolenaar.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to our witnesses today, and appreciate the work 
you are doing and the importance of rural development.
    I wanted to mention--and you may or may not be aware of the 
flooding event that occurred in mid-Michigan in May of 2020. 
Last year's catastrophic flood was the result of a historic 
rain event that led to the failure of two dams in my district. 
And the devastating events of that day essentially wiped out a 
100-year-old ecosystem created by the lakes and dams and caused 
about $200 million in damage, with millions more lost to the 
economic impact and the hardship it has had around the small 
communities surrounding.
    And a major disaster declaration was issued by the 
President last July, and the USDA was one of the first Federal 
agencies to respond, and I was very grateful for that. Former 
USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development Bette Brand 
came to our district with a pledge to support our recovery 
process. That has been happening, and the rebuilding and 
recovery efforts continue as we speak.
    And I just want to personally say, on behalf of thousands 
of mid-Michigan residents whose lives or businesses have been 
affected by this disaster, especially the 10,000 residents that 
were forced to evacuate, I thank you for the work you have been 
doing, and I want to ask for your strong support in the 
recovery process as we go forward.
    Along those lines, I would also like to invite you to come 
and visit mid-Michigan to see firsthand the work that Rural 
Development is doing to support the recovery and rebuilding 
efforts from last year's historic flood as well as the work 
that still needs to be done.
    Broadband is key, connecting our underserved and unserved 
residents. And I want to just also highlight that as well.
    I wondered if you might comment on if you are familiar with 
the situation, and, if so, or if not, is that something we 
could follow up and have a discussion to kind of look at the 
progress that has been made as well as things that still need 
to be worked on?
    Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir, I am broadly familiar with it, but I 
would love to have an opportunity to speak with you and hear 
about it from your standpoint. And I would love to do that 
face-to-face when that is possible to do.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Wonderful. And I will follow up with you on 
that, and I am grateful.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I know we have other questions, but I 
want to yield back.
    And thank you for your work on rural broadband. That is 
huge in my district as well.
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to the gentlelady 
from Minnesota, the chair of the Defense Subcommittee of 
Appropriations.
    Ms. McCollum, you are now recognized.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Good afternoon. And I want to thank you, Mr. Under 
Secretary, as well as your whole team here and everybody at 
USDA for all the work that they have done during COVID and 
going through a transition that didn't go very smoothly and now 
working on getting the budget done. So I know you folks are 
working really hard for us.
    And, Mr. Maxson, I appreciate in your written testimony--
and I really mean this--about the impact of broadband that it 
had on some of our Tribal communities and the role Rural 
Development can play in continuing to help to bridge this 
digital divide.
    The pandemic intensified the digital divide. And as my 
fellow Members of Congress know, Native Americans 
disproportionately suffered, more than any other group, during 
this pandemic. And we know that most of them are isolated, very 
isolated, in rural America.
    So this new sense of urgency to address these inadequacies 
is upon us, and we want to do something about it.
    But Tribal communities, to be clear, like other rural 
communities, maybe even more so, have struggled with access to 
have reliable, affordable broadband for years. And they are 
some of the most underserved populations across the country. 
The lack of broadband inhibits Tribal communities to support 
things like economic development, healthcare, and public 
safety.
    And the biggest impact for them has truly been on education 
in their rural and remote areas. The Bureau of Indian Schools 
is chronically underfunded. They are operating with aging 
technologies, computer equipment if they have it, laptops or 
even tablets if they have them. Sixty--excuse me, I want to get 
the number right--thirty-six percent of Native students have no 
access to the internet in their home.
    Tribal colleges and universities are faced with the same 
chronic underfunding problems as they go into the pandemic. And 
they have some of the slowest internet speeds at the highest 
cost. Many of the institutions of higher education in this 
country are really lacking reliable internet connectivity for 
their students when they go home.
    So these disparities put Native Americans at a distinct 
disadvantage to their peers across the country. Their ability 
to compete in the 21st-century economy is dependent upon the 
internet. It has the potential to worsen with generational 
poverty if we don't do something about this.
    So I would, you know, like to hear more about--because you 
understand these unique challenges to my rural brothers and 
sisters. And I have family who live in the rural parts of the 
United States too. I get rural.
    Could you maybe tell us a little more about what you are 
going to do to help Tribal schools and at the same time you are 
helping Tribal healthcare?
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that. It is an incredibly 
important set of concerns. If the pandemic has underlined 
nothing else, it has clearly made obvious that broadband is a 
necessity, not an amenity. And Tribal communities, in 
particular, have so many deep infrastructure concerns.
    Under Secretary Vilsack's leadership, there has been a real 
intention to lean into Tribal consultations and have an open 
ear and engage directly to really understand both the 
challenges and opportunities.
    There are a range of carve-outs across our infrastructure 
programs aimed to specifically provide grant resources to 
Tribal communities to ensure those with the most need have 
access to the dollars that are the most helpful.
    And I will just end by saying the StrikeForce initiatives 
in the budget I think will be really important in the colonias, 
in Native communities, in Appalachia, where boots on the ground 
and technical assistance resources aimed at bringing a whole-
of-government approach to these long-term challenges will be a 
critical effort.
    Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, I want to thank you for your effort. 
And Ms. Pingree, who chairs the Interior and Related Agencies, 
which includes the Bureau of Indian Education and Health 
Resources--and I am on that committee as well, too--look 
forward to working with you to make sure that broadband is 
strong all over the rural parts of this country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to my friend and 
fellow Blue Dog, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Henry Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your 
leadership, and also to the ranking member. Again, I want to 
thank both of you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for putting this 
hearing together.
    And I certainly want to thank Under Secretary Maxson, Dr. 
Neal, Mr. Parker, Mr. McLean. Thank you so much. I look forward 
to working with all of you.
    Under Secretary Maxson, I want to say thank you. I saw your 
written statement; you mentioned ``colonias.'' And I just heard 
you use the word ``colonias'' again. And I am so happy because 
I think you and I are going to be on the same page. So, first 
of all, thank you for that.
    I have three questions, but two of those questions will be 
submitted in writing.
    Mr. Cuellar. One of them has to do with, you know, we are 
concerned about the status of several electric cooperatives 
through the State of Texas that have incurred significant debt 
by keeping the power on during that difficult time. Again, in 
my opinion, I think it was a problem with Ercot, but still now 
we have those electric cooperatives who are suffering. So we 
will send you a detailed question on that.
    Also, you know, my parents were farmworkers, so anything we 
can do to help farmworkers, I appreciate it. I will also send 
you a question to see whether Rural Development can partner up 
with different organizations who are serving farmworkers in the 
delivery of services and programs to them. So I will send you a 
question.
    But what I want to focus on today is colonias. I represent 
a border area. Four of those counties--Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, 
Webb--even La Salle, are what we call StrikeForce counties, 
home to border colonias. There are about 2.5 million residents 
living in colonias, communities that suffer from high rates of 
poverty, along the southern border of Texas, New Mexico, 
Arizona, and California.
    As you know, those colonias are characterized by 
substandard housing, dirt roads, lack of access to potable 
drinking water, inadequate sewage disposal and drainage 
systems. On top of that, you have the problems, sometimes, of 
poor education, health services, limited job opportunities, 
high unemployment rates. And, of course, whether it is water or 
waste disposal infrastructure or broadband, as my other 
colleagues have talked about, I say that border colonias are 
considered a forgotten America.
    I have been dealing with colonias since I was in the State 
legislature, 1989, and they are still there. Thousands of them 
are there.
    So I would like to follow up--I have about 2\1/2\ minutes 
or so--see if I can get your thoughts. But I would love to 
follow up with you, Mr. Under Secretary, and Dr. Neal and 
Parker and McLean also, because we need to have some sort of 
colonia initiative coordinator. In the past, we used to look at 
EPA, but EPA only does one little part.
    I really feel--and I will be on for another 20 minutes, 
because I have a USDA announcement with Rural Development here 
in Atascosa County, and thank you so much.
    And I just have to say that if there is any agency that can 
build from underground to top, all the way, it is USDA. And you 
probably are the fastest agencies that we work with in 
Appropriations, at least my personal opinion.
    So I want to get your thoughts on that and ask you if I can 
follow up, Mr. Under Secretary.
    Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. It is such an important issue.
    I have a deep--it resonates with me, as an Appalachian 
person, where I am from, what generational poverty means and 
the challenges that it creates. And I am hopeful the new 
StrikeForce 2.0 has a real potential to be the sort of focused 
effort that brings all of USDA and strategic connections to 
other agencies in really deep ways to provide the range of 
assistance that communities need, from infrastructure to human 
capital, to technical assistance.
    And I think USDA is unique in the breadth of tools that we 
have, but building local relationships and connections to 
actually understand the challenges in the places, in my sense, 
is the critical thing. We can't define the solutions. We need 
to be close enough to the ground, in communication, to 
understand the challenges and the possibilities. And 
StrikeForce 2.0, under the Secretary's leadership, I think will 
be that.
    So I really look forward to the opportunity to have 
additional conversations with you about how we proceed on that.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. I believe your time has 
expired.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady 
from New York, Ms. Meng.
    Ms. Meng, you are now recognized for your questions.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Ranking Member.
    And thank you, Mr. Under Secretary and your whole team, for 
the work that you do and for being here today.
    I wanted to ask about rural water infrastructure. As you 
know, this pandemic has really highlighted the importance of 
having noncontaminated water for drinking, handwashing, and 
hygiene. Reports estimate that 60,000 community water systems 
in America--of the 60,000, 93 percent of them serve populations 
of fewer than 10,000 people.
    Old water supply systems pose a huge risk to public health, 
as corroding pipes can leach lead and copper directly into the 
drinking water supply. This problem also disproportionately 
affects communities of color in rural America, with Black and 
Latino neighborhoods in upstate New York, for example, being 12 
times more likely to get lead poisoning than children in White 
neighborhoods.
    It is clear that fixing this problem will take a cross-
agency, whole-of-government effort. I was grateful to see that 
President Biden's top-line budget supports increasing the Rural 
Water and Wastewater Grant and Loan Program. And I was 
wondering how USDA intends to use this proposed increased 
funding to the grant and loan program.
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that. I will ask Acting 
Administrator McLean to take that one on.
    Mr. McLean. Thank you very much. And thank you for raising 
an extraordinarily important problem.
    And we were all so encouraged to hear the President 
mention, you know, water, broadband, electric grid, RUS. We 
were cheering when the President addressed the Joint Session of 
Congress--and specifically mentioning this question about lead. 
So we take that as a mandate to get the lead out and work hard 
on this problem.
    And what is nice about the RUS water program is it has 
probably the largest panoply of opportunities, everything from 
our Circuit Rider Program where we can put technical assistance 
on the ground to help individual communities, and we have 
technical assistance grants that can help with those pre-
application. We have the SEARCH grants on pre-application. And 
then we have the loan, loan grant, and loan-grant combination 
opportunities to be able to build the infrastructure.
    So it is very, very important. And the quality of water, 
again, is essential to the quality of life. And we have at this 
moment about $3 billion of applications in our queue ready to 
go, and we have a lot of funding, but we have more applications 
than we do have funding. And we are, again, grateful to the 
committee for its strong support of the Water Program, and we 
are going to do everything we can to put that to its most 
effective use.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you.
    I have one more quick question about the LAMP program, 
Local Agriculture Market Program. And the Value Added Producer 
Grant Program within LAMP has been really helpful to past 
efforts in developing more resilient local and regional food 
systems. I believe that LAMP is a key vehicle for those efforts 
to rebuilding back better as our country seeks to recover from 
this pandemic.
    But I was surprised to see that the administration was only 
requesting $15 million in traditional discretionary funding for 
the program, which is less than what our subcommittee had 
appropriated in the past. So just wondering what you might be 
able to tell us about your plans for LAMP and VAPG, and does 
this funding request include the Value Added Producer Grant 
Program?
    Mr. Maxson. Dr. Neal.
    Ms. Neal. Thank you so much for that question and for your 
interest in these really important programs. We obviously are 
looking very closely at the budget and wanting to make sure 
that we can have resources for these programs. They have had an 
impact, and they have been popular.
    We are also interested in thinking about, to your sort of 
larger question, around food systems, you know, what are the 
other kinds of resources that we can inject into the food 
systems pathway. So we think about the Healthy Food Financing 
Initiative, other kinds of programs as well.
    And so, really, what we are wanting to do is address those 
issues. We know that the Value Added Producers Grant and LAMP 
and other programs can do that, and we want to make sure that 
we have a cohesive method of doing that. And we will work with 
the budget to make sure that that happens as best we can.
    Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you. I look forward to working with 
you on that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
    That concludes the first round of questions.
    I guess I will go back to Dr. Neal, regarding food deserts.
    Of course, you just touched on food and nutrition, but more 
than 40 million Americans still lack reasonable access to 
nutritious and affordable food, including 4.6 million in rural, 
low-income communities. As we have seen in the COVID-19 
pandemic, having access to the healthy, affordable food is 
essential, and our system was too easily disrupted in the 
crisis.
    We are pleased that USDA administers the program through 
community development finance institutions that can raise 
private capital, provide financial and technical assistance, 
support local partnerships, and directly fund projects that 
improve food access in all communities, with a special focus in 
rural communities. We have got too many rural food deserts.
    Given your past experience, how can USDA build on the 
successful model? And how can the American Rescue Plan be used 
to further support equitable food systems? And how can we put 
grocery stores in rural communities, where now they can't be 
afforded because it is just not commercially sound for the 
communities to support them? Can you give us some tips and a 
plan, perhaps, of how we can eliminate these food deserts with 
grocery stores?
    Ms. Neal. Thank you so much, Representative, for these 
really important questions. As a former lead of a CDFI loan 
fund, I am certainly attentive to these issues and thoughtful 
about them.
    One of the things that we want to do is to think through 
how we can make sure that more CDFI entities, whether they are 
loan funds, community development banks, community development 
credit unions, or venture funds, that they have access to our 
programs, know how to access them, know how to engage with 
them, so that they can provide access to capital for the 
communities and the projects that mean the most--many of those 
projects which, as you know, are very much in line with the 
priorities of this administration.
    So I think there is really an opportunity there to engage, 
further engage more through development financial institutions 
in this work.
    As mentioned when we talked about responding to 
Representative Meng's question as well, I mean, I think there 
are a number of programs that we have that can help address 
food deserts and those kinds of things, from, one, thinking 
about the food itself, so things like the Value Added Producer 
Grants and those kinds of things, but also thinking about the 
businesses that are going to serve as the entities through 
which that food is delivered. So, you know, these may be the 
IRP program, intermediary loan program, that might help finance 
the business, or the RMAP, the Rural Microentrepreneur 
Assistance Program, which might, again, help finance these 
kinds of entities.
    And I think, you know, we want to be sensitive to the fact 
that there are a variety of business models that can help 
address these issues, from traditional businesses to 
cooperatives and others. And we stand ready to assist and to 
work intentionally around that effort to help close those gaps.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Let me shift gears a moment. Based on the information that 
we get from USDA every week, it looks like Rural Development 
has fully obligated the CARES funding for distance learning and 
telemedicine grants, and ReConnect Grants has put a lot of 
business industry funding out there.
    The Rural Development 2021 supplemental funds and the 
American Rescue Plan funds have not yet been obligated. Of 
those funds, I am particularly interested in the $100 million 
for Rural Rental Assistance and the $39 million for relief of 
direct single-family borrowers and for borrowers for Home 
Repair funds.
    Now, these are among the poorest populations that you 
serve. Can you speak to any holdups or problems that you have 
in getting this assistance out and when it will be available?
    Mr. Maxson. Mr. Parker.
    Mr. Parker. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    The $39 million that was made available for single-family 
housing is going to be used to refinance borrowers who have 
been under forbearance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Those funds have been moved into our IT systems and are 
available now for agencies to utilize. We expect to put out 
directions later in May regarding how those funds will be 
utilized, advising our field staff and the rural constituency 
on the use of those funds. And we plan to begin accepting 
applications for those dollars late May to early June.
    The funding, the $39 million in budget authority should 
allow us to make approximately $650 million in 502 Direct Loan 
funds and $18.8 million in the 504 Repair Loan.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Parker.
    Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. I want to return to the broadband 
discussion, and let's just call it ``the gap.'' So we have to 
define the gap and close the gap. How are we defining the gap? 
How are we closing the gap?
    Mr. Maxson. I am sorry, I just lost internet. I am actually 
in the Whitten Building, and it just came back on, so----
    Mr. Fortenberry. That is exactly what I am talking about, 
the need for more broadband, right?
    Mr. Maxson. I apologize, Representative Fortenberry, but I 
need the question again.
    Mr. Fortenberry. That was perfectly on cue, perfectly 
timed. Thank you to the wonderful staff for teeing that up. 
Well done.
    Rural broadband, back to the discussion, I am calling it 
``the gap.'' How do we define the gap? How do we close the gap?
    So we have a mapping strategy, which appears to be 
fragmented--I would like to discuss that--closing the gap.
    Because, I would say, there is a whole spectrum of things 
that we can spend so much time on, and we have done a lot of 
them today, but since broadband is such a bipartisan issue, 
there are so many funds flowing that way, it represents a huge, 
huge set of opportunities. Are we thinking critically about how 
to identify the gap and close the gap?
    Mr. Maxson. Chris McLean, would you like that one?
    Mr. McLean. Yes, sir. I am delighted to.
    Yeah, I think that is a very good point. You have got me 
reflecting back to the days when I was a young Senate staffer 
working on the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That gap is a 
shifting thing. It is a thing that moves through time. The 
goalposts do change, as technology improves.
    And I think one of the ways to answer your questions is to 
look at how we define our program availability. In the 
ReConnect Program, in round one and round two, we set out to 
learn, where is the worst gap? It was communities that had less 
than 10/1 service. And, then, where do we want to go as a 
minimum level? And we defined that in the funding opportunity 
as to build at least to 25/3.
    Now, what did we get? What were our results? Our results 
were far beyond that 25/3, because we created incentives to go 
beyond the minimum.
    And, as we put together the round three funding level, we 
are looking at that gap, as to where to direct funding and then 
where to----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay, I think I am following you. You are 
trying to use your resources in the most targeted way----
    Mr. McLean. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Where you have the biggest 
gap.
    Mr. McLean. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Let's try to move to the conversation 
about the overall gap. Just give me the aggregate. Obviously, 
we have a mapping process in the Federal Government.
    Mr. McLean. Yes.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Speak to that, where that is----
    Mr. McLean. Sure.
    Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. How that would be updated, 
how quickly that will be. And then the innovative ways in which 
we are going to define the possibility of new delivery systems 
and how rapidly to close the gap.
    Mr. McLean. Okay. Yes. Very good.
    Mapping first. Every RDApply application and, really, all 
of our telecom applications start with a map. So we map what we 
invest in. We have the FCC's map, and the NTIA has a new map. 
Mapping for us is informative----
    Mr. Fortenberry. What does it say? What does it say for the 
country?
    Mr. McLean. It is a mix. In rural areas, you have a lack of 
service, particularly outside of highways. The further away you 
get from the Interstate Highway System, the less service you 
have. Communities that we have been talking about this 
afternoon--Tribal communities have some of the poorest amount 
of service----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. So I think we need a simple set of 
statistics that is really definable around--forget the 
complexities. It is not just access; it is also affordability.
    Mr. McLean. Yes.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Most urban communities have ready access, 
but the affordability is an issue. Many rural communities may 
have some providers, but, again, the expense doesn't allow for 
this to happen.
    I have a very interesting situation where a mother in a 
25,000-person community here, which is rural in character, sits 
in the parking lot with her child to try to get WiFi so they 
can do their homework.
    Mr. McLean. Yes.
    Mr. Fortenberry. So we want to move past that quickly.
    So you know the nature of the question.
    Perhaps if somebody wants to pick this up, as well. I am 
going to divert for a few moments, in the few seconds that I 
have. The chairman and I worked on a Rural Placemaking 
Innovation Challenge Grant for technical assistance and 
planning to create places where people want to live and work. I 
need an update status on the implementation of that from 
someone, if we have a moment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    And, at this time, I am happy to recognize Ms. Pingree, the 
gentlelady from Maine.
    You are now recognized.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you to everybody on the team here for persisting 
in answering all of our questions. We really appreciate the 
work that you are doing.
    I want to talk a little bit about REAP, which is one of my 
favorite programs, if you can have a favorite. And I have a 
bill, the Agriculture Resilience Act, which looks at some 
policy changes, basically making sure that, to the extent 
possible, that the energy that is being used has the greatest 
possible impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So giving 
those a priority or set-aside funding for those that would be 
underutilized technologies or with a particular focus on being 
effective demonstration projects.
    So I guess I am just curious, and I know you can't decide 
in a minute here, but--it is not just because it is my bill, 
but I think it is because the administration is really focusing 
on climate change, and on-farm renewable energy is a great cost 
saving to the farmer, as we know, and also a good place in 
rural America to demonstrate some of the opportunities of using 
renewable energy.
    So are there administrative changes in how you score or 
just any ways you could go about doing it without legislation?
    Mr. Maxson. Dr. Neal.
    Ms. Neal. Thank you again for this question, 
Representative. This is a really exciting opportunity.
    So we are excited about REAP as well. I have been on the 
job now for 1 month and 1 day, and it is one of the things I 
have heard a lot about and read a lot about. So I am pleased 
that you asked the question.
    REAP is--we continue to manage that program. It has been 
very popular. We continue to use it. One of the things that we 
are pleased about is the funding that you mentioned for the 
renewable energy pilot, where we are able to have a source of 
funding that we can use to pull from the best things that have 
worked in programs that we have had. And REAP is certainly one 
of those where we might be in a position to pull out the things 
that worked best from that and use that in portions of the 
renewable energy pilot, but then also think about, what are 
some new and innovative things that we might be able to do?
    We have gotten some excellent feedback from the community, 
from across the country, from folks who are interested in 
underserved areas and underserved technologies and making sure 
that these kinds of technologies are available in equitable 
format across the country in a variety of ways.
    And so we are, as particularly with this renewable energy 
pilot, looking forward to developing that program. A panel is 
convening, a multiagency panel is convening to really look at 
that work and help us figure out how we can develop a program 
that will begin to meet--or continue, really, to meet the needs 
that you have outlined.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, thank you. I will look forward to 
seeing, you know, what kind of opportunities you develop and 
working with you on that going into the future.
    The other question I just wanted to ask a little bit about 
is related to PFAS, which I know is an overwhelming and 
complicated issue that impacts so many agencies but, you know, 
will impact the USDA in a variety of ways.
    And our State has had some issue with PFAS contamination in 
rural areas. And in some places, it has made wells that people 
use for drinking water, which are particularly important in 
rural communities--some of them, they can no longer use them 
because of the contamination.
    So I am just interested in ways that Rural Development 
might be able to support those households where the private 
well is too contaminated, in terms of remediation or other ways 
that they could facilitate where those challenges are and where 
I am sure we will continue to have more challenges.
    Mr. Maxson. Administrator McLean, could you take a crack at 
that?
    Mr. McLean. I would be delighted to.
    And, Congresswoman Pingree, your question could not be more 
timely. In a very short period of time, you should be seeing a 
new announcement from USDA Rural Development about distributed 
water resources. And it is a revolving fund where we work with 
organizations who can then re-lend those funds to individual 
homeowners who are having problems with their wells.
    And so that is one of the opportunities. Plus, again, the 
current programs that we have. Our Circuit Riders are available 
to be able to help communities plan out maybe a distributed 
water system, you know, to hook up people who have had 
contaminated wells to water system water if that is feasible.
    But the timing of your question could not be better. We are 
just moving along that documentation to make that announcement 
in the very near future, that the program for individual wells, 
a re-lending program, is about to be announced soon.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, thank you for both of those 
answers.
    And I do appreciate the revolving loan fund. I think one 
small challenge will be making sure people are aware of it and 
can access it. Because, often, if you are the one person with 
the bad well in a rural area, you don't necessarily know there 
is a revolving loan fund.
    But, again, thank you. I will look forward to the 
announcement. If it is a really great program, I will take full 
credit for, you know, asking you about it in this committee, 
and our committee will take full credit for it as well.
    But thank you so much.
    And thank you, again, to everybody for your answers.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize for a second 
round Dr. Harris.
    You are recognized.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    And just to follow up on the gentlelady from Maine, yeah, 
that wastewater and drinking water, those revolving loans and 
grants, they are very, very important to our rural communities, 
as you can imagine.
    I am just going to ask a couple of aspects of the 
broadband. One is that, under the ReConnect Program, I am just 
curious, why does it have to be fixed terrestrial broadband? 
Why is satellite not allowed under it?
    I specifically ask because there actually is one part of my 
district where you can't run physical cable and it is not line 
of sight, so satellite would make a lot of sense there.
    Can you just give me the background on why satellite is 
excluded?
    Mr. McLean. Well, in the early round, we were able to fund 
the ground stations. Of course, we certainly didn't have any 
money to be able to fund launching of satellites, of course. 
But it was a question of trying to direct the funding to where 
it could do the most value.
    And that is what we are trying to grapple with right now in 
constructing the round-three funding notice. We just closed our 
comment period on our ReConnect regulation, and it is a very 
robust record, and we will be evaluating that. And we will be 
looking at questions exactly like that, of what kind of 
technologies we want to include in and out of this funding 
round. And so this is definitely a timely question, as we 
figure out how round three will look.
    Mr. Harris. But you would not need statutory authority, I 
mean, you would have the authority to include satellite if you 
decided to do it?
    Mr. McLean. Again, to the extent that we could afford it, 
yes.
    Mr. Harris. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
    And, now, I also have electric cooperatives--a lot of rural 
areas do--electric cooperatives. Choptank is one of the big 
ones in my district, and it actually has applied to do some of 
the rural broadband. It makes sense. They have a lot of 
backbone, they have infrastructure. The State legislature had 
to change a few things to allow them to do it.
    But, on a national basis, how important are the electric 
cooperatives as some of the roots for getting broadband out to 
their customers?
    Mr. McLean. If I may take that question, I am delighted 
with that question. I am the Acting Administrator of the RUS 
but my day job is to be the head of the RUS Electric Program. 
And so the answer to your question is: Absolutely essential.
    We are very, very proud of the work that rural electric 
cooperatives are doing to be able to be a catalyst for 
broadband deployment. Because your electric grid of the 21st 
century is as much about moving information as it is about 
moving electrons. And so smart technologies are needed 
desperately by the electric utility service providers. And that 
provides a synergy and a catalyst for broadband deployment.
    And we are seeing rural electric cooperatives apply for the 
ReConnect Program. We are seeing rural electric cooperatives 
deploy the fiber-based smart grid.
    A little factoid here that is fascinating to me: In fiscal 
year 2020, I financed slightly more fiber for rural electric 
service providers than I did power lines, because of this great 
push on smart grid and all of the possibilities that that opens 
up for network reliability, grid security, and improved service 
and to be able to preempt outages and add to the efficiency of 
the grid.
    So that synergy between rural electric cooperatives and 
broadband is a natural. We love it when we see rural 
cooperatives work together with local telco companies to be 
able to team up and provide services. So it is an important 
trend.
    You also saw in the reverse auction at the FCC that rural 
electric cooperatives did very well in winning a number of 
those territories, and they are bringing out--they are, again, 
combining their electric service needs with their communities' 
demand for broadband.
    So thank you for that great question, and we do agree that 
co-ops are very important.
    Mr. Harris. Well, thank you very much.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Harris.
    And I would like to yield at this time to Mr. Valadao of 
California.
    You are now recognized.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman.
    Section 514 and 516, Farmer Housing Direct Loans and Grants 
Program is important for my constituents. I represent a major 
agricultural region in the United States that produces more 
than 400 agriculture crops. I know firsthand how critical our 
farmworkers are to our Nation's economy and getting food on the 
table of millions of Americans.
    Section 514 and 516 are the only Federal programs that 
provide affordable loans and grants to purchase, construct, or 
repair housing for America's farm laborers. Farmworkers have 
the worst housing needs of all people living in rural 
communities.
    President Biden's initial skinny budget for fiscal year 
2022 is silent on rural housing. Do you have any plans to 
improve upon Section 514 and 516 housing programs? If so, which 
I hope you do, would you please detail these plans for the 
committee?
    I think you are muted there.
    Mr. Maxson. I am sorry.
    Mr. Parker, do you have thoughts on that?
    Mr. Parker. Yes, I do.
    Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    For our Farm Labor Housing Program, 514, 516, for this 
fiscal year, we have issued that notice on February 2, putting 
out a notice of applications for $36 million.
    What we did to get out that notice is we worked with a lot 
of the farmworker stakeholder community, also talking to 
organizations to ensure that we were bringing in the right 
aspects to that notice--things where we have raised the maximum 
loan amount up to $5 million, permitting applications to be 
submitted along with a cycle that works with the low-income 
housing tax credit and other local funding award cycles.
    And, also, putting up, for transparency's sake, our 
applications, making those available at the end of the funding 
period so that people can see the applications that were there 
and the ones that were approved and the scoring around that, so 
people that had not received funding in the past would be able 
to work towards a better application in the future.
    We certainly plan on continuing to work with those 
organizations. And we have had a lot of strong positive 
feedback on this year's notice, but we plan to continue to work 
with those farm housing stakeholder organizations to bring in 
their advice and input to improve in future years.
    Mr. Valadao. And do you have any additional insight you can 
share with the committee related to Rural Development's other--
I mean, obviously, outside of the ag guest worker or ag worker 
housing, but other equally important housing assistance 
programs? I mean, it obviously plays a vital role, and housing 
prices seem to continue to rise, especially here in California.
    Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. Rental assistance, our 515 Multi-
Family Housing Direct Loan Program, generally are always in 
need of funding. We are going to fully utilize our guaranteed 
multifamily housing utilization--full utilization of rental 
assistance this year, full utilization of the Rural Housing 
Service voucher funding, as well as the funding that is 
provided through the American Rescue Plan for the COVID-19 
pandemic.
    We will fully utilize those funds, starting at the end of 
May, early June, to cover overburdened tenants inside our 515 
households. So I appreciate all of your assistance from the 
committee in making those funds available.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Appreciate it.
    And then I will change course a little bit. It is no secret 
that the western United States is in the midst of a severe 
drought that does not appear to have an end in sight. This 
disaster will, without a doubt, have a rippling effect on rural 
communities in the West, like those in my district.
    A few weeks ago, the Biden administration established an 
Interagency Drought Relief Working Group, of which USDA 
Secretary Vilsack is part. And while it is encouraging to hear 
the Biden administration is acknowledging the emergency in the 
West, it is not clear what the working group plans to do to 
combat this issue.
    There is no time to waste. Please describe how you plan to 
work with the Secretary and the working group to combat 
consequences of this critical drought. And I have only got a 
little bit of time left, but I appreciate a quick----
    Mr. Maxson. Just super-quickly, I would say that we take 
seriously that disaster and recognize, fortunately, that RD has 
a range of tools, from the small-business side to some of the 
infrastructure tools. I think probably the most important thing 
is our boots on the ground, that our staff in those States are 
aware of the challenges, are in conversations with lots of 
stakeholders. And we will aim to filter that information up to 
the Secretary, up to the task force, to ensure that they have 
accurate and grounded information based on the strength of that 
staff.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I am out of time. I 
appreciate that, and I look forward to working with you as we 
move forward on the drought issue.
    Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. For sure, it is a disaster.
    Mr. Valadao. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    That will complete round two. We have a few members still 
in the meeting, and I would like to start a round three.
    I just have one question. It has to do with rural housing 
preservation. I just wanted to take a minute to ask about the 
rural housing programs that are operated by RD. I have a 
question on both the multifamily and the single-family housing.
    Housing instability, of course, can lead to adverse health 
effects, and it can compromise the development of children.
    As you likely know, there is a significant threat to the 
USDA's multifamily housing portfolio, with an impending wave of 
maturing mortgages over the next several years. A 2016 report 
indicated that the 20-year cost to preserve and maintain the 
portfolio totals $5.6 billion.
    Can you please explain what the Department plans to do to 
preserve the affordable housing stock and increase the number 
of units or construct new units so that families can have 
greater access to affordable homes?
    And then let me go to the second question, and that is: I 
wish to touch on the subsidy recapture--as some of my 
constituents have called it, surprise billing--when they sell 
or transfer their property that has been financed with a 
Section 502 loan.
    I wanted to ask, should we be revisiting the practice of 
implementing subsidy recapture, which really catches many of 
these borrowers unaware? And it can have a substantial impact 
on their finances, when they think that they are able to sell 
what has been an asset that they have fully paid for.
    Mr. Maxson. Chad, a quick response?
    Mr. Bishop. Yes.
    Mr. Parker. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    I think the biggest pieces around rural housing 
preservation for our Multi-Family Housing Program would be 
clearing the backlog of the 515 properties that we have 
awaiting for preservation. We have 171 projects that are right 
now awaiting funding to undergo rehabilitation and 
preservation. Those projects are shovel-ready. We would be able 
to move on those within 30 to 60 days upon receipt of the 
appropriation.
    And we have a lot of energy aspects that would be a part of 
those rehabilitations. So it would help those multifamily 
housing providers to be able to control their operating 
expenses, as well, as part of that.
    Also, as far as that preservation piece, addressing our 
underfunding of the Multi-Family Housing Preservation Program 
in the long run would be important, and then looking at 
potential funding of rental assistance for unassisted tenants 
inside the Section 515 portfolio, allowing a funding stream for 
those borrowers, multifamily housing providers, to be able to 
reinvest in their facilities.
    As far as the subsidy recapture piece, the subsidy 
recapture piece is under our Single-Family Housing Direct 502 
Program. Whenever we provide a payment subsidy around the 
interest rate, it builds up a subsidy over time.
    Statute requires us, USDA, to recapture that funding if the 
owner of the property leaves the property, no longer resides in 
the property, or sells the property. It was not always a 
requirement. Back in 1979 was when subsidy recapture was 
instituted. So there was a timeframe when subsidy recapture 
didn't take place.
    I think USDA would welcome the opportunity for there to be 
a change in that statute to allow us to reconsider that 
provision, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. So that would require some legislation on our 
part, on the part of Congress, to eliminate that recapture 
requirement.
    Mr. Parker. That is correct, sir. It would require 
legislation.
    It would also impact--because the recapture of those funds 
is calculated into our subsidy rate for the Single-Family 
Housing Direct Loan Program. So there would be a loss of that 
recapture funding, so it would increase the subsidy rate for 
our program, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay. Well, we would like to talk a little bit 
more about that, because it seems to be a hardship, and it 
really takes away from the ultimate wealth building of the 
people that you are actually serving who are in those rural 
communities. And we are really trying to really enhance that 
wealth, to build capacity and wealth, and of course this is 
something that, at the last minute, is a surprise cost that 
takes away. So we will want to revisit that.
    Mr. Fortenberry, I would like to yield to you at this time 
for any additional questions that you may have.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have just got to return back to the broadband question, 
given the timeliness of it and the seriousness of it. And, in 
our 10-minute dialogue, we just don't seem to be connecting on 
the intention of my question, so let me try it this way: Give 
our rural broadband deployment a grade. Give rural broadband 
deployment a grade. Where are we? A, B, C, D, or F?
    Mr. Maxson. I am going to take a crack at it.
    With your acknowledgement, 105 days, it may not be fully 
satisfactory. And I would just say, what feels important to me 
right now is a recognition that rural broadband deployment is 
becoming a national priority. And while there have been 
investments----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Correct.
    Mr. Maxson [continuing]. Up to this point, it feels like, 
today, through the AJP and the work of this committee around 
ReConnect, we are reimagining what is possible with a depth of 
investment, a scale of investment, and a level of collaboration 
and coordination that will allow what is, in my sense, a real 
possible goal of 100 percent with significant speed.
    I think the American Jobs Plan, similar to your earlier 
statement, provides the resources not only to count the 
expansion of broadband but the tools and the opportunities that 
broadband creates toward livability, in that the----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah, we need rural broadband, and that is 
very important.
    So it is actually three things: defining the gap, closing 
the gap, understanding the meaning of what this delivery is and 
measuring it that way as well.
    So, look, okay, now we are aligned in terms of 
intentionality. Now I think we have to put the tools in place. 
You used the word ``reimagining.'' This is an emerging 
priority, bipartisan priority. There is a lot of money out 
there on this and probably is going to be coming, and we have 
to do it right. Because it is here. I mean, let's leverage it.
    Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. The Secretary is clear that there is 
an opportunity to lean in to rural broadband, a moonshot, not 
because broadband, in itself, is important; it is what it 
allows communities to do--to, you know, participate in the 
broader economy, to see their loved ones, you know, when they 
are separated, to do precision agriculture, to lean in to the 
uses in a way that transform what is possible in rural 
communities.
    In fact, the vision I think the American Jobs Plan is 
anchored on is all about livability and the role that broadband 
can play in that transition.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So we are going to have to work on 
definitions. We are going to have to work on metrics that don't 
default just to the things that are measurable, and some 
sensitive measures, if you will, toward these broader concepts 
that aren't just abstractions, they are realities. They are 
just harder to measure.
    So, with that said, let me move to the other question, and 
maybe you can answer this one as well.
    So thank you. That is a great answer. I appreciate it.
    Rural Placemaking Innovation Challenge Grants that we put 
in the last bill, where are we?
    Mr. Maxson. Um----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Because it goes to the heart of the 
question, what we are trying to answer here. And that is why we 
did it. That is why the chairman and I worked on this.
    Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. It is an important program. I think 
we agree with you that part of why it should be spotlighted is 
it helps communities imagine the sort of community they want to 
live in--high-speed broadband, access to quality education, 
access to healthcare, an economy with good-paying jobs. Some 
communities need help in accessing the planning and other 
skills necessary to make----
    Mr. Fortenberry. You know, I think Representative Pingree 
actually had a tangential reference to the same sentiments 
earlier in her question.
    So, before I run out of time, though, where are we on the 
implementation of this?
    Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. Right now, there is a notice of funds 
available going through clearance, and my expectation is that 
it will be available quite soon. And I will follow up with you 
about that clearance process to give you the specifics of that.
    But the notice of funds available is developed. I know the 
funds are set aside, because I have been part of multiple 
conversations about that. And we expect the notice to be 
available soon.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Maxson. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Deputy Under Secretary Maxson, Dr. Neal, Mr. 
Parker, Mr. McLean, thank you so very much for your testimony 
and for spending the afternoon with us. We understand how 
incredibly busy you are these days, and so we are really 
grateful for your time and your courtesies in being with us.
    The Rural Development mission area provides services and 
programs to rural America that promote economic development by 
assisting our rural areas with access to capital through loans 
and grants to build critical infrastructure, including our 
water systems, broadband networks, and housing.
    And many, many people don't realize the enormous role that 
your agency has in developing and assisting rural America. And 
so I appreciate your hard work, this subcommittee appreciates 
the hard work and the hard work of your staffs to provide rural 
Americans the opportunities to overcome geographic inequities 
that have limited the growth and the development of rural 
America. And we hope that you will be able to provide brighter 
opportunities for a better future.
    Along with what we have discussed, we will perhaps forward 
some additional questions for the record, and we would 
appreciate your diligence in getting responses to us in as 
quick and as timely a manner as you can.
    But thank you again for being here. Thank you for indulging 
us and for the information that you were able to share.
    Mr. Fortenberry, do you have any closing remarks?
    Mr. Fortenberry. No, other than to say thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I think it has been a very important discussion about 
a wide-ranging breadth of things, programs that are all pointed 
toward a more vibrant, again, ecosystem of livability.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    And thank you to all of the members in attendance.
    And thank you to the staff who put this hearing together 
and who helped us run it very smoothly. So thank you for your 
work.
    With that, the subcommittee is now adjourned.
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                           Wednesday, May 12, 2021.

          USDA RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS MISSION AREA

                               WITNESSES

CARRIE CASTILLE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, 
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
HUBERT HAMER, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE, 
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CHAVONDA JACOBS-YOUNG, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, 
    AND ECONOMICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SIMON Y. LIU, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. 
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SPIRO STEFANOU, ADMINISTRATOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. 
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    Mr. Bishop. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Agriculture 
of the House Committee on Appropriations will now come to 
order.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters. For today's meeting, the chair or staff, 
designated by the chair, may mute participants' microphones 
when they are not under recognition for purposes of eliminating 
inadvertent background noise. Members are responsible for 
muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not 
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to 
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will 
unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved and you will retain 
the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members of their time is almost expired. When 
your time has expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin 
to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules beginning with the chair and 
ranking member, then alternating between majority and minority 
present at the time the hearing is called to order will be 
recognized in order of seniority. And, finally, members not 
present at the time of the hearing is called to order will be 
recognized in time of their--in the order of their appearance.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff. 
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on at 
this time.
    Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on USDA's 
Research, Education and Economics programs. As you know, the 
best decisions are those based in sound science, so I am 
delighted to have our agricultural experts here with us today. 
Testifying before the subcommittee today is Dr. Chavonda 
Jacobs-Young, Acting Under Secretary for Research, Education, 
and Economics. Thank you for being here today.
    With Dr. Jacobs-Young today are current leaders of 
Research, Education, and Economics agencies: Dr. Simon Liu, 
Acting Administrator for the Agriculture Research Service, Dr. 
Spiro Stefanou, Administrator of Economic Research Service, Mr. 
Hubert Hamer, Administrator of the National Agriculture 
Statistic Service, and Dr. Carrie Castille director of the 
National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Thank you for 
spending the morning with us.
    Dr. Jacobs-Young, thank you for your distinguished service 
in support of agriculture research for USDA and our country. 
Your work has certainly not gone unnoticed. Thank you for 
reminding us of the Secretary's top priorities set forth in his 
testimony before the subcommittee on April 14 containing the 
pandemic, preventing--promoting rather, racial justice and 
equity, addressing mounting hunger and nutrition insecurity 
crisis, rebuilding the rural economy, strengthening and 
building markets for farmers and producers, addressing the 
impacts of climate change, and rebuilding expertise and morale 
within the Department.
    Collectively, the agencies under your purview account for 
$3.4 billion in discretionary appropriations. The science-based 
solutions, groundbreaking research, and useful data that you 
provide are invaluable for farmers to accelerate productivity 
and sustainability of crops, for ranchers to efficiently manage 
livestock, and for consumers to make informed choices about 
these products that are so essential to our daily lives.
    Further, it is the Economic Research Service, ERS, issuing 
reports on the state of the world economy, the National 
Agricultural Statistics Service, NASS, publishing the latest 
acreage report, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 
NIFA, supporting research at the Nation's land grant 
institutions, or the Agricultural Research Service, ARS, 
publishing research to enhance the production of pecans. Your 
agency has truly touched the lives of every American.
    COVID-19 has placed great strain on the ability of your 
agencies to conduct business as usual. So the importance of 
your work has never been more apparent, as the products of your 
efforts support so many other USDA programs. I look forward to 
discussing the work that your agencies do and how you have 
adapted to meet the crisis at hand.
    The coronavirus pandemic has not only--challenge has been 
placed in your way, but it is worth mentioning that the 
staffing issues that have resulted from the move of ERS and 
NIFA are an ongoing concern for our subcommittee. I am 
interested in understanding how you plan to build these 
agencies back from the brink and how to further strengthen the 
work each of you conducts.
    The recently released budget request reads, the preview, 
includes a total increase of $647 million for your agencies. 
That is nearly a 20 percent increase. As I am sure each of you 
is aware, the benefits from increases to research programs may 
take years to fully realize. I wish that we could snap our 
fingers and get rid of the WiFi problem in Georgia, but I 
recognize that tackling the issue is not just about funding, it 
is about coordinating responses among multiple partners, 
targeting shared research goals that take a while to agree on, 
and implementing and sharing results to ensure that the folks 
on the ground have the right tools to solve their most pressing 
challenges.
    These strategic and coordinated efforts are not unique for 
the pest management issues we face in Georgia. They are 
repeated every day through the various research programs, data 
collection efforts, and economic analyses that your agencies 
perform. Our Nation relies on your data to make better 
decisions for our food and fiber systems.
    I am really inspired and delighted that you are committed 
to have our Nation maintain its leadership role in agricultural 
innovation and productivity. And I am happy that you recognize 
the obligation to support research, education, and extension 
activities.
    It is as you indicate in your testimony, Dr. Jacobs-Young, 
it is too easy for us to take for granted the healthy, 
nutritious, and safe foods that are available to us, or the 
clean air that we breathe, the bio-based goods that we use 
every day, the fresh water we drink, and even the clothes that 
we wear. These are benefits rooted in discoveries made by 
Federal investments and agricultural science and partnerships 
with our land grant universities and our minority-serving 
institutions.
    And I am glad that together we can look forward to building 
on these discoveries and starting a new chapter in American 
innovation, which supports our rural economies, spurs job 
growth, and expands our scientific horizons.
    I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the challenges 
that your agencies face, the successes that you have had in 
these very trying times, and the plans to best position your 
agencies to be successful in the future. I want to thank each 
of you for being with us today, and I look forward to our 
discussion.
    At this time, I would like to ask my partner and my 
distinguished Ranking Member Mr. Fortenberry if he would like 
to give my opening remarks with his time.
    I assume that he will, and so at this time I am delighted 
to recognize, Mr. Fortenberry, the ranking member, the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska.
    Mr. Fortenberry, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as we have 
worked together for so long, you know me well, yes, sir, I do 
have a few opening comments, but, first of all, let me commend 
you for your leadership and your opening remarks as well, they 
are excellent. And much of what I have to say, I think, aligns 
very well with your opening remarks.
    I want to thank you for holding today's hearing, but also 
thank our distinguished panelists. Dr. Jacobs-Young, I was 
reviewing your bio. You are quite busy wearing a number of hats 
right now, and I look forward to hearing from you. Dr. Liu, Dr. 
Stefanou, Mr. Hamer, and Dr. Castille, all to you, welcome, and 
good morning.
    Mr. Chairman, as you have well stated, America leads the 
world in food production. We also have one of the lowest per 
capita grocery prices in the world. Our ag efficiency is so 
impressive we can afford billions of dollars in support every 
year to those facing food insecurity both here and abroad. And 
we often take it for granted, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman.
    Our Nation's prestigious and unparalleled ag success does 
not happen by accident. We lead the world in ag output in part 
because we lead the world in ag research. If we were to 
continue to lead in today's hyper-competitive global ag 
economy, we need our research to also be nimble.
    This work should begin with the creation of a comprehensive 
repository of current ag research and the alignment of it with 
our overarching research goals. And once we have a coordinated 
and good grasp of current research and gaps, we can better 
integrate scientific discovery into our food systems. Our 
continued success is ensured only if we challenge ourselves as 
well with new ideas.
    One ambitious new paradigm is what I call the farm of the 
future. This means building upon our ag production--our 
production ag tradition to include research on tools like 
precision agriculture, to enhance sustainability, regenerative 
capacity, and revenue to the farmer. It means a real-world test 
bed of the farm to the future--of the future concept using big 
data and better connectivity to increase yields with less 
inputs.
    It means expanding our definition of agricultural 
education, wedding tradition ag sciences like agronomy, animal 
husbandry, and plant sciences with emerging sciences like 
environmental studies, conservation, and international 
development.
    From traditional row crop and livestock producers to 
specialty growers and even urban gardeners, it means connecting 
the farmer to the family, the urban to the rural, and the farm 
to the table as the way forward to seize emerging opportunity.
    Mr. Chairman, by its very breadth and scope, this new 
paradigm requires innovative facilities and programs that 
address critical science gaps, develop and deploy climate-smart 
regenerative practices, and create decision support tools that 
are aligned with the USDA's science blueprint.
    Now, here is the dilemma. Fragmentation can stifle 
innovation. For instance, the Agricultural Research Service has 
800 research projects in 90 locations. Greater coordination 
with this new vision could mean greater results. And I 
appreciate the chairman alluding to this in his opening remarks 
as well.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe to effectively implement 
this bold new vision, we need a high level of understanding of 
how it helps our diverse array of agricultural producers. That 
is why I continue to advance our Blue Ribbon Panel for Higher 
Education, ag education, that was funded in the last year's 
appropriations bill to re-envision the mission of public land 
grant universities and align it with USDA leadership, to 
elevate an effective architecture for regenerative farming that 
respects tradition while inviting next-generalization farmers 
to an innovative future.
    To modernize ag research, to make research more useful in 
the field, and to dramatically improve coordination between 
USDA and land grant universities, including stronger 
consortiums between larger land grants and Historically Black 
Colleges. The product of this panel could improve research 
collaboration transparency, and ultimately as Ag Secretary 
Vilsack has informed us, shake policy in the next farm bill as 
well as deliver important new value-added opportunity for 
students.
    Mr. Chairman, as the world recovers from the pandemic and 
increases its demand for premium ag products from America, we 
have an extraordinary opportunity to re-envision the future of 
ag research and education and remain forefront, remain at the 
forefront of agricultural sciences and leading the world in 
agricultural outcomes.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry. We are 
very fortunate to have--to be joined this morning by the chair 
of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro. She has exhibited 
tremendous leadership of the committee, and, of course, she has 
great experience having been a leader on this subcommittee for 
many years.
    And so at this time I am delighted to recognize, for any 
comments and remarks that she would like to make, the chairman 
of the full Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentlelady from 
Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro.
    Ms. DeLauro, you are now recognized.
    The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for your kind words. I am appreciative of you 
and Ranking Member Fortenberry. For both of you, for your 
continued leadership of the subcommittee, and especially with 
this hearing on scientific research at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
    To you, Dr. Jacobs-Young, welcome to the Appropriations 
Committee. We look forward to your testimony on the 
administration's discretionary budget request for the 
Department's Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area. I 
appreciate you and the colleagues who are with all of us today, 
Dr. Liu, Dr. Stefanou, Mr. Hamer, and Dr. Castille, thank you 
all very, very much.
    You know, the investments we will be making within this 
mission area as part of the 2022 appropriations bill, this 
comes at a very critical time. Let me be frank, in my view, the 
Department of Science and Research agencies have had to endure 
4 years of assault, agencies like the Economic Research 
Service, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 
were targeted, hollowed out, and moved from Washington, DC. Our 
task now is to rebuild and refocus these agencies which have 
long been seen as unbiased and trusted for research and 
expertise.
    And we now have an administration that believes in the role 
of science. Dr. Jacobs-Young, as you have pointed out in your 
written testimony, science is so critical to American 
agriculture and to addressing the challenges that we face 
throughout the food system.
    That is why I have long been concerned by the declining 
levels of public funding for agriculture research, and 
development in the United States, especially during a time when 
our global competitors have done just the opposite.
    For example, spending by the Chinese government on 
agriculture R&D surpassed that of the U.S. in 2008 and more 
than doubled by 2013. And despite this, agriculture science and 
research is as important now as it has ever been.
    The problems we face, ensuring enough food for a growing 
population, addressing the existential threat of global climate 
change, transforming our food system from being reliant on 
extractive and exploitive practices to being regenerative and 
restorative. These all have a common denominator. Scientific 
breakthroughs hold the solution.
    And I look forward to seeing these premier scientific 
agencies play a significant role in tackling these issues.
    I also want to say a thank you for your agencies for the 
work that they have done over the last year and for the work 
they are continuing to do.
    The COVID-19 pandemic created the greatest public health 
and economic crisis in a generation. But USDA scientists did 
not miss a beat. Their insight and expertise were critical in 
understanding the true impact of the pandemic on families 
facing hunger, on America's family farmers and ranchers, and 
our local food systems and supply chains.
    So I am eager to hear more today about the administration's 
request for the REE Mission Area and how these investments 
might sustain and improve the farmers and families in my 
districts and districts across our country.
    And with that, I again thank you, Chairman Bishop and 
Ranking Member Fortenberry, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Chair DeLauro.
    Dr. Jacobs-Young, without objection, your entire written 
testimony will be included in the record, and I recognize you 
now for your statement, and then we will proceed with 
questions.
    Dr. Jacobs-Young, you are now recognized.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you.
    Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, and Chairwoman 
DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Chavonda 
Jacobs-Young, and I am the acting under secretary for research, 
education, and economics at USDA. I am pleased to appear before 
you with my colleagues to testify on the President's fiscal 
year 2022 budget for the REE Mission Area.
    In his testimony before the subcommittee on April 14, 
Secretary Vilsack outlined USDA's top priority: Containing the 
COVID-19 pandemic, promoting racial justice inequities, 
addressing the hunger and nutrition insecurity crisis, 
rebuilding the rural economy, strengthening and building 
markets for farmers and producers, and addressing the impacts 
of climate change. He also emphasize the need to rebuild 
expertise and morale within the Department.
    When appropriately resourced, I believe the Research, 
Education, and Economics Mission Area is well positioned to 
advance these priorities. I am pleased that the President and 
Secretary are strongly committed to investments in research and 
development that will define U.S. innovation for decades to 
come.
    REE will support research on climate mitigation, 
adaptation, and resilience to inform our farmers as they work 
to feed the world. We will expand our partnerships with 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities at minority-
serving institutions to leverage our capacities and build on 
the invaluable connection they have with underserved 
communities. And we will provide sound science that responds to 
the COVID-19 pandemic and future global public health threats. 
Our scientists are vital contributors in the fight against 
COVID-19.
    REE deploys decades of research to examine how the virus 
affects food systems, food security, and agriculture. NIFA 
refocused over $23 million to support COVID-19-related 
research, extension in education through land grant 
universities and small businesses.
    ARS has raised critical questions about the ability of 
domestic animals to carry and transmit the virus. ERS launched 
the COVID-19 working paper series to provide analyses on the 
pandemic and collaborated with 11 universities to investigate 
how COVID impacts agriculture supply chains.
    We are grateful for the more than $140 million provided to 
REE in the December Coronavirus Response and Relief 
Supplemental Appropriations Act to shore up hunger relief 
programming and support farmers. These funds deepen our 
investment in research to improve resiliency in the future and 
strengthen local and regional food systems.
    REE continues to support President Biden's unwavering 
commitment to tackling the climate crisis by investing in 
continuous, consistent observational records, a cornerstone of 
global climate science and resilience research.
    REE leverages technology to advance climate-smart land use 
conservation, precision agriculture, and carbon sequestration 
through its regional climate hubs which provide practical tools 
to American producers and customers and a touch point for 
applying relevant science and technical information from USDA 
researchers.
    To reposition the United States as a leader in climate 
change mitigation, we must engage our farmers, ranchers, and 
private landowners, and private forest owners to build new 
markets, develop renewable energy, and create new streams of 
income for producers and land owners. The REE Mission Area 
stands ready to meet these challenges and advance the 
administration's climate goals.
    Meeting the immense challenges facing agriculture in human 
and animal health, natural resources, and conservation requires 
a well-resourced agency and a well-supported workforce. REE 
faced significant staff losses over the past 5 years, and 
rebuilding that capacity will improve our ability to support 
the Nation's farmers, producers, and consumers from farm to 
fort.
    If the United States is to maintain its global leadership 
in science and technology, our workforce must look like 
America. USDA investments in inclusion, diversity, and training 
future generations through formal and informal learning will 
ensure equity across its agencies. The President's fiscal year 
2022 discretionary request for USDA's REE Mission Area provides 
$4 billion to support research, education, and extension 
activities.
    Chairman Bishop said this, and I believe it bears 
repeating, nutritious and safe food, the clean air we breathe, 
the bio-based goods we use, the fresh water we drink, and even 
the clothes we wear are benefits rooted in discoveries made by 
Federal investments in agricultural science in partnership with 
your land grant universities and minority-serving institutions.
    We look forward to building on these discoveries and 
starting a new chapter in American agricultural innovation. Mr. 
Chairman and Ranking Member Fortenberry, I look forward to 
working with you and the members of this subcommittee.
    I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may 
have. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs-Young. We will now 
proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier, we will begin 
with the chair and ranking member, then alternating majority 
and minority with members present at the time the hearing 
starts in order of seniority.
    After that, I will recognize members not present at the 
time the hearing is called to order. Each member will have 5 
minutes in each round, so please be mindful of your time.
    At this time, I will recognize myself to begin the 
questions. Dr. Jacobs-Young, you just recently mentioned the 
staffing needs for ERS and NIFA and your mission area. Those 
problems, particularly, at ERS and NIFA are well-known, are 
resulting from the relocation last year.
    I want to be clear that I recognize that the relocation was 
not your decision, but we are where we are, and I am focused on 
how these agencies can, to borrow a phrase from the 
administration, build back better.
    Secretary Vilsack was recently asked about the plan for ERS 
and NIFA, and he stated his goal was trying to limit the level 
of disruption to the agencies while increasing staffing. I 
share that goal, but I also believe that the most important 
thing for ERS and NIFA is to hire many people who can hit the 
ground running and get us back on track.
    Your work is cut out for you, as about a third of all of 
the positions at ERS and NIFA are still vacant 18 months after 
the move. What is your plan to quickly and appropriately fill 
the staffing vacancies at each of the agencies?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you for your question. And I am 
absolutely--ERS and NIFA are our highest priority in rebuilding 
the workforce. I will insert here that each of the agencies 
suffered extreme losses and had many vacancies. And so we have 
a hiring effort under way that we began about a year and a half 
ago where we are hiring at an extremely fast pace, not avoiding 
quality in those hirings, but making sure that it is our 
highest priority.
    In the beginning, as you mentioned, ERS and NIFA lost 
almost 75 percent of the employees impacted by the relocation. 
So they simply declined to accept the relocation and left the 
agencies. Right now our highest priority is to not, you know, 
further disrupt the employees but to continue to hire at a pace 
that is going to help us meet our goal.
    I will share with you that since October 2019, NIFA has 
brought on 179 positions, ERS has brought on 96 positions. And 
before the end of the fiscal year, we plan to bring on a total 
of another 100 positions, about 50 in each agency. And that 
will--each agency is about at 220 people at this time. So we 
are on our way.
    The pandemic was a disruption in our lives. One of the 
highlights during the pandemic is that we were able to do a lot 
of hiring, and so we really did capitalize on that time. And so 
we will be working to look across America to identify the right 
people for the right positions.
    And as I said earlier, we wanted to make sure that those 
people also resemble America. So we have put hiring in place, 
we have contractors in place, we have been using them over the 
last year and a half and 2 years, and they have supported us 
tremendously.
    I will also add that ARS announced 1,500 positions in 
fiscal year 2020 and we were able to bring on 1,200 permanent 
and temp employees during that time. And so hiring is one of 
our highest priorities.
    And so we will stand behind NIFA and ERS to continue to 
meet the needs around hiring.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay. Quickly, let's look at the big picture 
for USDA research and where each of your agencies is headed in 
next 5 years. And we may have to come back to this later.
    But NASS and ERS--can I get each of you--well, I will come 
back to this in the next round. My time is about expired.
    So at this time let me just yield to my Ranking Member Mr. 
Fortenberry for any questions that he may have at this time.
    Mr. Fortenberry, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, Dr. 
Jacobs-Young, welcome to the committee. Thank you for your 
testimony. And as I noted when I reviewed your biography, you 
are quite busy with a number of assignments at the moment.
    I have a single question to start out our dialogue. What is 
the highest research priority at USDA?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. That is a complicated question because, 
you know, as you know our researchers are responsible for 
supporting every aspect of agriculture. And right now, one of 
the biggest cross-cutting priorities is climate change. Because 
what we find is that, you know, the impacts of climate change 
impact many different areas of agriculture, including 
nutrition. You know, we are taking a look at the impacts of 
climate change on the impact of nutritional values of crops.
    So I would say our highest priority right now is responding 
to and be resilient in the face of climate change.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Thank you. I want to just unpack 
this a little further because I am going to use the word 
``sustainability,'' not that I have a ready-made answer to you. 
But sustainability has two sides of the coin. Obviously, 
environmental consideration, combined with revenue to farmer. 
Ability of the farmer to actually produce and make a living 
from the extraordinary resources of the land.
    So as--the reason I am pointing this out is and in my 
testimony trying to push conceptually, at least, the idea of 
the farm of the future, which enhances precision agriculture, 
which builds upon our strong ag tradition in terms of low crop 
and livestock production, and then invites others as well to 
expand the ag family into specialty crop production, and again 
creating regional economies--local and regional economies to 
reconnect the urban and the rural. I think are all the exciting 
and leading-edge things.
    In which if we can have more singular focus on this 
conceptually, I think we go a long way toward answering a lot 
of the various, as you rightly point out, complexities of 
agricultural research.
    So that is just my little speech, but I wanted to get that 
in front of you for you to know how I am thinking about this as 
well.
    Secondly, what is the most important research discovery 
recently made?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. So it is, you know, as administrator of 
ARS in my day job, it is kind of hard to pick the best of my 
babies. But I will share with you some of the outcomes, some of 
the impacts that we have recently--I think about our 
development of the African Swine Fever vaccine and being able 
to disseminate that technology to commercial entities to begin 
to support the production of an African Swine Fever vaccine.
    To think about our work in COVID state, right away ARS 
researchers were able to pivot and conduct research to let us 
know due to the common poultry, to cattle, to swine can they, 
are they susceptible to the virus, and can they then transmit 
the virus to producers and others? The work on their part of 
them getting those $23 million worth of grants out the door in 
a very big way and very fast, which typically is not the case. 
Sorry, I am getting a lot of feedback. And I can't hear myself.
    So, yeah, so I think about those things, and then I think 
about the Asian giant hornet. You know, and so when we talk 
about, you know, being able to be--one of the beauties of 
infrastructure in intramural research agencies is we have the 
capacity in places to quickly pivot to respond to emerging 
threats.
    The Asian giant hornet reared its head in the State of 
Washington. We were able to go back to our colleagues to get 
our research and quickly develop a lure that captured the Asian 
hornet, trapped it back to its nest, and dealt with the issue. 
So----
    Mr. Fortenberry. If I could just stop you there. Thank you 
very much. I think what we are doing is we are both probing the 
idea here that we have got two missions at once. One is to 
respond to emerging needs, as you are rightly pointing out in 
terms of the possibility of plagues or problems that are 
emerging in food delivery.
    And as I am trying to state, tether ourselves consistently 
to overarching framework so we advance this greater cause of 
revenue requirement the sustainability of food production as it 
has all types of consequences for the environment as well.
    One quick question before my time runs out. You had 
referenced this in your testimony as well. And we are looking 
at better coordination between land grant institutions and 
minority serving institutions. What are your initial ideas in 
this regard?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Initially, we want to be able to develop 
things like we are doing right now, creating centers of 
excellence, creating initiatives that bring, proactively bring 
different segments of our ag enterprise together. And I think 
those are going to be successful in helping us to bridge those 
coordination pieces.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. And at this time, I 
am delighted to recognize the chair of the full committee, Ms. 
Rosa DeLauro, the gentlelady from Connecticut.
    You are now recognized.
    The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Jacobs, for too long, we relied on extractive, 
exploitive form of corporate agriculture. Lots of negative 
consequences. We have seen the rise of large livestock 
confinement operations, some of which housed millions of 
animals, small pieces of land, or inside of a building. And 
whether or not we are looking at hogs, poultry, cattle, the 
operations are known to make our food less safe, increase 
antibiotic resistance, and contribute to climate change.
    We also learned this week that this corporate agriculture 
has directly been taking people's lives. There was a study 
published in the proceedings of the National Academy of the 
Sciences found that hazardous air pollution from livestock 
confinements resulted in 17,900 deaths each year in the United 
States. That is unacceptable.
    I don't believe livestock should be raised in confinement. 
I don't believe the science can justify it. We have got to find 
ways to incentivize and support regenerative and pasture-based 
operations instead of continuing to subsidize this confinement 
model.
    At the same time, we should pursue poverty in research 
funding for alternative proteins, a compelling option for 
addressing agricultural emissions. How can the REE Mission Area 
and its scientific agencies support these initiatives and 
facilitate a more sustainable regenerative food system?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you for your question. I did read 
The Washington Post article. I, unfortunately, have not had an 
opportunity to read the full study. I have had a lot of 
questions after reading the Post article, and I hope they will 
be answered after I see the entire study. So at this point, I 
am not in a position to make an informed opinion on this study.
    And in the area of regenerative agriculture, I really would 
like to bring in the heads of our Agricultural Research Service 
and our National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and we can 
talk a little bit about the work under way.
    Dr. Castille with NIFA.
    Mr. Bishop. Dr. Castille, if you would please unmute.
    Ms. Castille. I am sorry about that. I was having 
difficulty getting off of mute. So thank you so much for your 
question.
    We are doing a lot of work in this space within AFRI, our 
flagship competitive program. So we have six funding categories 
that measure quite closely with the farm bill priorities. And 
we work closely with our land grant universities.
    We are looking at sustainability as well as regenerative 
agriculture. But there is really four priorities that we are 
looking at. One is on the productivity side, two is on the 
stewardship side, three is on the profitability side, and four 
is really quality of life.
    And so, again, I think you will see all of that research 
and our partnerships with our land grant universities is going 
to pay off in dividends in these areas. So thank you so much 
for your question.
    The Chair. Thank you. I have--I don't know if anyone else 
is going to speak, but I have a question on nutrition that I 
wanted to pose to Dr. Jacobs.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Fantastic. We can move on to nutrition. 
Thank you.
    The Chair. Okay. Thank you. A recent study, school meals 
are now the healthiest source of food consumed in the U.S. It 
is an achievement that was made possible by USDA implementing 
the nutrition standards that resulted from the Healthy Hunger-
Free Kids Act which the Congress passed.
    Despite the improvement, we are still facing a nutrition 
crisis exploited by the COVID pandemic. And you know that there 
is a study again from Tufts that found that two-thirds of 
hospitalized COVID-19 patients had diet-related diseases, 
including heart disease, diabetes, obesity.
    So what work has been done within REE on improving 
nutrition and diet quality of Americans? What have the findings 
told us about the sort of policies we should look at? I would 
be interested in hearing more about your coordination and 
collaboration with your Federal partners when it comes to 
nutrition research. Not very much time left, but so, tell me 
what----
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. I will move very quickly just to share 
with you. You know, with our six nutrition center, one of them 
being the Tufts Nutrition Center, we provide a lot of data to 
our partner agencies, the Food and Nutrition Service, Food and 
Drug Administration.
    One of the things that is our expertise in USDA is really 
using decades of data to determine, you know, what are the 
guidelines and the guidance for helping people to eat healthy 
to avoid chronic disease, to avoid being vulnerable.
    And so we are working with FDA, with the Food and Nutrition 
Service, and with our other colleagues to provide the data from 
the fundamental data from those nutrition centers.
    The Chair. Okay. Thank you. I have run out of time. I thank 
you very, very much. And I will provide some questions for the 
record.
    Thank you, and thank you to all of your colleagues here 
this morning. You do wonderful, wonderful work. And we can't 
move forward without you.
    Thank you very much.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    The Chair. Thank you to the Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chair. And at this time I am 
delighted to recognize the former chair of this subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 
with you today and have our guests here before our 
subcommittee.
    And, Dr. Jacobs-Young, I will address this to you, but also 
if any of the others, administrator, director wants to answer 
this or feel like they might have a better insight on this, you 
know, I will certainly welcome that.
    Employment in the timber industry is an important economic 
engine, not only in the district I represent, but also in the 
State of Alabama and really across the Nation. And I am sure 
that you are aware and most people have become aware now that 
the demand for lumber has increased dramatically just over the 
last year.
    With housing startups, there has been a lot of home 
renovations that have taken place over the last year, just do-
it-yourself improvement, all of that especially during the 
pandemic has really caused this to skyrocket.
    Lumber mills, such as I have one of the ones in my 
district, Jasper lumber, had been producing lumber as fast as 
possible, but the demand seems to continue to increase. It is 
my understanding that increasing lumber availability in the 
marketplace has been limited by factors including workforce and 
trucking shortages, limited ability of building materials, and 
high demand for manufacturing equipment. Has ERS done any 
research into the limiting factors that are driving these 
prices increases in the ag--in this ag commodity and the 
corresponding effects that is having on our rural communities?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. So let me first say as a graduate of a 
college of forced resources, it excites me that there is this 
high demand for forest products. Lumber is a wonderful way to 
store carbon. So this is--it has some positives to this.
    I am going to ask Administrator Stefanou to give us some 
insight on to if there are any studies out of ERS.
    Mr. Stefanou. Thank you for your question. At present, we 
don't have any studies that we can release on timber and 
timber-related employment. But this is a classic case of demand 
out stripping supply at the moment, and how the catch-up will 
happen is something to be investigated. But we will be happy to 
get back to you with what we have to offer.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, are there plans to conduct research or 
to collaborate with other agencies, like you said, just ITA 
that have been communicated with the stakeholders on this 
issue?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. So I think that, you know, we have our 
close friend, Dr. Alex Friend who is head of research for the 
Forest Service. And this will fall right in their bailiwick and 
so what we can do is reach out to Alex and determine what we 
can find and get back to you on it.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, I think that is very important. I am 
hearing this just almost constantly that the supply there is 
not--and we need to fix this issue because it is really causing 
a lot of hardship on a lot of people and construction moving 
forward.
    So I appreciate if you all will look into this and can get 
back with us on the subcommittee as of how we can do this.
    Mr. Aderholt. Next, Dr. Jacobs-Young, we have heard that 
some in the USDA have expressed interest in creating a carbon 
bank that would seek to encourage the adoption of certain 
agricultural practices, result in additional, measurable, and 
verifiable carbon reduction density sequestration.
    As the chief scientist there at USDA, can you describe the 
challenges with measuring carbon reductions and sequestration 
across agricultural industries?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. We have opportunities in USDA to really 
focus on a number of the aspects of the climate, you know, 
equation, including looking at precision agriculture, smart 
climate ag practices. And we have been able to do that with our 
long-term Agroecosystem Research Network.
    And so we have had opportunities to test some of the 
practices and some of the techniques that we will be sharing 
and bring it to bear. As a science agency, it is our job to 
really help, regardless of what the concept, the task is to be 
able to help them find the data and information to support the 
decisionmaking. So that is pretty much our role in the mission 
area.
    Mr. Aderholt. Is there any challenges that come to mind as 
you move forward on this?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Well, we are look always looking amount 
technologies, sensor development, and our long-term 
Agroecosystem Research Network, the ability to do these common 
experiments across the country, and having the right technology 
is important. You know, using artificial intelligence, big 
data, data storage. There is a lot of, a lot of issues that we 
have overcome and some that we are still facing.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    At this time. I am delighted to yield to the gentlelady 
from Maine, the chairwoman of the Interior Subcommittee, Ms. 
Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you 
for holding this hearing today. I appreciate all that we have 
been able to learn.
    And thank you, Dr. Jacobs-Young, it is a great to hear your 
testimony, and I want to ask you a little bit about climate 
change data tools.
    The President's budget included $161 million funding 
increase to support multiagency initiative to integrate 
science-based tools into conservation planning, to better 
measure, monitor, report, and verify carbon sequestration and 
greenhouse grass emissions and other environmental services on 
farms.
    I am particularly interested in this, and I would like to 
know more about the USDA's research agencies, the role that 
they would play in the multiagency initiative, and a little 
more specifically how are the USDA researchers currently 
tackling the knowledge gaps that we have and how we measure and 
verify soil carbon sequestration?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. We have--you know, USDA, I 
will just first say has been a leader in the climate science 
space for decades. And so we are just happy to be positioned to 
be able to provide a lot of this data and information to the 
topic at hand.
    I will turn to administrator, Acting Administrator Simon 
Liu to talk a little about our long-term Agroecosystem Research 
Network, where we are doing some of this work.
    Mr. Liu. Thank you very much, Dr. Jacobs-Young.
    Thank you very much, Representative, for your questions.
    Yes indeed, at ERS we do have extensive experience in 
measuring and tracking the greenhouse gas emissions from the 
crops, on the livestock, or pasture, or rates in our production 
system. So we do have ten USDA climate hubs, and also 18 
locations in the long-term Agroeco Research Network.
    So those are the key players in the effort across the 
country and work with our local producers and the stakeholders 
to study the carbon emissions and also greenhouse gas emissions 
and to develop the management adaptation circling the regional 
productions. So we are very excited about it, and are looking 
forward to work with you and your staff on this very, very 
important topic. Thank you.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. And we will have more information as the 
detail budget is available. We would be happy to come back and 
meet with you about the overarching initiatives that will be 
included in the budget.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. So would you say--I guess, I am 
interested in this sort of critical question about how we are 
able to measure the carbon in the soil. And would you say that 
that is an area where the USDA needs further research or that 
you have got some systems that you are currently using that you 
feel good about how we are tracking it. I don't need to get too 
many specifics. If you want to get back to me on it.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yes. And it is an area of research. And I 
talked a little bit about sensors. And so we are trying to 
automate a lot of this, and so it is an exciting area of 
research. I would be happy to talk more about it with you.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Let me just ask you a second question. 
It is a little bit about the coordination. During the last 
administration, the Office of Inspector General actually was 
trying to assess whether policy changes resulted in the 
suppression of any climate change research. One of things that 
we heard was that they weren't able to draw a solid conclusion 
because the REE Mission Area can't identify and track 
scientific publication to issues on any particular subject 
area.
    So given that, you know, this is the real focus of your 
agency on climate change, I am concerned about the lack of 
coordination between the USDA's research agencies.
    So how do you plan to improve coordination of climate 
change research within the REE Mission Area across the USDA and 
then across the Federal Government.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. So some 4 or 5 years ago, we developed a 
mechanism, a model after the MH Pub Med. It is called Pub Ag. 
So all of the ARS Federally funded research papers are housed 
and available online from the ARS scientists.
    We also are working very closely with NIFA. As you can 
imagine, it is easier for us to collect the information from 
our scientists. We have assigned ORC IDs. They have digital 
identifiers. We harvest that work into our pub ag. And we have 
ag data comments where we store our data sets.
    We are working with NIFA right now since January, since I 
have been in this seat, and we are pulling them into and to pub 
ags. And as you can imagine, it is much more difficult with 
scientists all over the country at institutions all over the 
country.
    So this is a little more complicated, but luckily we have 
had some practice. And so stay tuned. We expect to be able to 
show all of those publications from NIFA, ERS, and NASS as 
appropriate in our systems.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I am happy to hear that. And 
thank you again for your work and your answers.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to Dr. Harris of 
Maryland.
    Dr. Harris, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask 
about a couple of areas of research that are ongoing.
    One is of concern is that ag ARDA, you know, the Advanced 
Research Development Authority was established in the 2018 Farm 
Bill, but has not yet--we are still awaiting the report, the 
strategic plan from the Department.
    It was supposed to be 180 days after that farm bill was--it 
was supposed to have a strategic plan now after the 2021 
Omnibus Bill, do you know when the strategic plan is 
forthcoming? Because I think one thing the pandemic showed us 
is that we do need to have an aggressive research position, 
government-funded research that might not be funded by the 
private sector in anticipation of threats to our agriculture 
system or agriculture-based diseases.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. We are very excited about the 
concept and the vision for a guard of this opportunity to look 
at big, audacious challenges, ones that we haven't been able to 
get our arms around before in the past, that won't typically be 
picked up by other segments of the industry, and it is very 
much in the bailiwick of the government agencies.
    The Secretary, by the way, is fully behind this vision, and 
so we are very excited about it. We have been working with the 
stakeholders and working with some of the committee staff and 
the member staff to talk about what should be sort of the 
direction for this plan.
    And we are in the process of developing it and would be 
happy to come back and have a conversation with you. We do 
believe that when this project or when this effort is 
appropriately resourced, we will be able to have tremendous 
impact on transforming agriculture.
    Mr. Harris. Can I ask was any funding included in the 
President's budget?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Five million dollars was included in 
President's budget.
    Mr. Harris. Okay. 5 million, but the authorization is up to 
50. So hopefully we can get moving on some of that.
    One other issue that is of interest is that the ARS alone 
will spend over $100 million on nutrition research this fiscal 
year. But we are still using a pretty nonscientific, 200-year 
old Body Mass Index, the BMI to determine obesity and use that 
as a proxy, to some degree, for overall health.
    In fact, some States are even using it as a measure for 
vaccine priority. But as you probably realize, BMI is a very 
crude estimate that, for instance, people who have a lot of 
muscle mass will be determined to be either overweight and 
occasionally even obese based on muscle mass because of the way 
BMI is determined.
    Has USDA conducted any research on this health measure? And 
if so, will the Department view the development of a better 
tool as a priority as we go forward in analyzing nutrition and 
nutrition research?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. As I mentioned before, we 
have these six nutrition centers that cover nutrition needs 
from cradle to those of us well over 50.
    And so ARS is collaborating with the U.S. Health and Human 
Services on a more personalized or precision nutrition aspect 
of this conversation.
    Really, we are looking at--and I think COVID-19 was a great 
example of pointing out some of the connection between obesity 
and chronic conditions and how we need to be able to better use 
precision nutrition to provide the guidance.
    The BMI was one that works, but precision nutrition is a 
better way to go. My precision nutrition is going to be 
different than your precision nutrition. And so we are 
definitely working on ways to be more, I would say, 
personalized in our approach to nutrition for each individual.
    Mr. Harris. Well, good. Because I think the BMI is just 
outdated now. We should have much better ways to determine who, 
in fact, is overweight and obese.
    You know, finally, I have a big problem that is growing 
into Maryland, the Chronic Wasting Disease. So CWD, which is 
affecting, of course, deer. It is beginning to affect deer in 
the State of Maryland. But it is unclear whether or not this 
is, ultimately, a threat to humans or a threat to livestock.
    Can you tell me what is the Department doing to further 
investigate Chronic Wasting Disease and to determine, first of 
all, whether we can develop a test to rapidly test, or is there 
a concern that it will cross over into humans and livestock?
    A concern that again that the COVID kind of brought into 
light that these diseases can occasionally jump between species 
and in fact into humans.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. We do have work under way on Chronic 
Wasting Disease, and we will be happy to follow up with you 
after the hearing to talk about the work we have under way.
    Mr. Harris. Okay. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Harris.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me start with, I was very glad to see the President's 
budget request include a robust investment in agriculture 
research. I am very proud of the groundbreaking agriculture 
research that is done at UW-Madison, and ARS has been a great 
partner in that.
    One challenge, though, is that the facilities at University 
of Wisconsin that the ARS researchers work in are in terrible 
condition. It is a World War II building. We had Secretary 
Purdue come out in the last administration and visited. My only 
regret is they swept the cockroaches out before they showed it 
to him. I am hoping that we can work together to update these 
facilities.
    I was hoping you could describe the state of our ARS 
facilities, and what do you need from Congress to make sure 
that we are on par with the excellent research that is being 
conducted by the ARS?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. And thank you for the 
opportunity to address this issue.
    ARS has over 3,000 buildings, some $5 billion worth of 
buildings and facilities with an average age of 48--47, 48 
years old. And so they are the result of a boom in 
construction. I think back in the 1960s or something like that. 
And some of these buildings have never been replaced.
    And so when I became administrator of ARS in 2014, we began 
to really focus our attentions on securing resources for those 
buildings. And I want to thank you all for us currently having 
over a billion dollars to invest in buildings and facilities.
    And if I gave Dr. Liu an opportunity to talk, he would say 
we are only scratching the surface because there are so many 
facilities that we are yet to address.
    So we do a great job attracting the best and the brightest. 
We need to be able to retain them, to give them the opportunity 
to work in modernized facilities with modernized equipment and 
IT systems, and, quite frankly, we have been very challenged in 
that in the way that we have been approaching it.
    But so, yes, I hear you, and I have had the report back on 
that facility, and others, and we are working very, very hard 
to really look at our facilities that are in the lowest 
condition where we are conducting our highest priority 
research, and we are trying to assess our strategy on how we 
address those facilities.
    Mr. Pocan. Well, we appreciate that, and if you ever would 
like to even have a virtual tour of that facility, we would 
love to show it to you. We wish we were only 48 years old. We 
are another generation older than that, and we are doing some 
really great seed research and other research in the building.
    We cohabitate with the USDA. But it is a building that, you 
know, is truly substandard in pretty much every definition and 
would love to, love to work with you on that if you ever would 
like a virtual tour or in-person tour. More than likely, we 
will give you some damn good cheese, too, while you are in 
town.
    So, second on hemp research. You know, hemp provides a 
great economic opportunity for a lot of our Wisconsin farmers 
and growers across the country. However, more research is 
needed to help farmers address some of the challenges in hemp 
production, like disease and limiting the levels of THC, which 
we really experienced a lot in my district because really they 
are responsible for destroying the crops if it was too high.
    When is the USDA planning to support hemp research at land 
grant universities? How are we doing that? And is there a plan 
to make sure that research supports farmers in this new 
industry?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. First, let me say we are definitely 
excited to be a part of the equation on helping to generate 
this opportunity. ARS received funding to establish a germplasm 
collection, which is going to be important to collecting the 
best germplasm. As you can imagine, this is a new area for us, 
and so we have had to apply for a DEA license and receive a 
license.
    And as you talked about, to be able to control the level of 
THC. Can it be .3? Can it be higher than .3? So there are a lot 
of questions that have had to be answered.
    We also have research under way in hemp cropping systems, 
looking--how do you use hemp in maybe crop rotation, hemp 
processing, and marketing systems.
    So we have number of efforts under way, and I know that Dr. 
Castille can talk a little bit more about our hemp research 
with the land grant universities.
    Dr. Castille. Sure. Sure. And I know I have limited time, 
but thank you again for your interests.
    We do have a few programs that I might mention. One is our 
Supplemental and Alternative Crops Program as well as through 
AFRI, our flagship program. Small businesses and Innovation 
Research Program as well as our Capacity and Multistate 
Programs.
    We also have two 1994 projects as well. One is in Bay de 
Noc Community College in Wisconsin. And then also, again, some 
hatch multistate projects in which we are coordinating efforts 
from a regional perspective. But I can provide you more 
information if you would like.
    Mr. Pocan. No, I appreciate that. Please do. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thanks for the time.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    That was fantastic, Dr. Castille. You gave a lot of 
information in just a few seconds.
    Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Perfect. Something happened with my 
settings there.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. Jacobs-Young, 
for attending, and the rest of our guests.
    I want to talk a little bit about drought. Dr. Jacobs-
Young, in your testimony, you mentioned extreme weather and how 
it is threatening farmers' and ranchers' operations and bottom 
lines. I agree that consequences of extreme weather events, 
including severe droughts, are a major problem.
    We are seeing the effects of the drought in my district and 
across the American West in real time. I have highlighted for 
your colleagues at USDA, who have testified in front of this 
subcommittee previously in this Congress, that the ongoing 
drought my constituents are suffering, though, is a disaster 
that will, without a doubt, have a rippling effect on our rural 
communities in the West, like those in my district.
    We all need to work together to alleviate consequences of 
this disaster. Earlier this week, California Governor Gavin 
Newsom, with the urging of myself and my colleagues in the 
State delegation, finally declared additional counties in 
California under the state of emergency, including my entire 
district.
    Several weeks ago, the Biden administration established an 
Interagency Drought Relief Working Group, of which USDA 
Secretary Vilsack is part. It is encouraging to hear the Biden 
administration is acknowledging this emergency in the West, but 
it is not clear what the working group plans to do to combat 
this issue, and there is no time to waste.
    Please describe how you plan to work with Secretary Vilsack 
and working group to combat consequences of the critical 
drought.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yes. And, you know, Congressman, you 
know, I think it might have been 4 or 5 years ago, we were in 
the same position, talking about drought in California, and I 
had an opportunity to testify about some of the proactive 
measures that we are taking to assist.
    We have established a climate hub in California, and that 
is a regional approach to being able to address some of the 
very targeted issues, and one of them is drought for 
California.
    In our science, for USDA science, we are working to develop 
plant varieties that can be tolerant to drought, that can grow 
and prosper in a place of drought, that can grow in high-
salinity environments because the water supply in California is 
highly--has a lot of saline in it.
    We are also developing tools to help predict water 
availability, so if we can give farmers and producers even just 
a heads-up in an effort to be prepared. We work with NASA to 
develop a tool called iSnowball, and it forecasts your water 
availability based on the amount of snow that is available and 
the melt that we expect. And so we are using those types of 
tools.
    We also have a tool that we have developed called the 
Evaporative Stress Index, and it helps us look at 
evapotranspiration in plants to improve drought monitoring.
    So we are doing things that we hope can be able to provide 
decision tools for producers that can give them a heads-up, you 
know, and hopefully we can provide the data we have, the 
solutions we have around irrigation techniques to the effort 
that is going to be happening at the national level.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. Obviously, research in 
drought-tolerant crops is something that is very useful, and 
lot of the irrigation techniques is something that is being 
implemented and continues to be implemented across more.
    I am going to try to change things up a little bit. Trade. 
Your testimony highlights research efforts between universities 
and Economic Research Service to investigate how COVID has 
impacted agriculture supply chains. There have been major 
delays across the United States of producers having an 
extremely difficult time moving their goods to where they need 
to go outside of the U.S. Empty container ships are leaving the 
U.S. ports and heading back to southeast Asia, without moving 
any cargo from the U.S. that is supposed to be exported.
    Coupled with excessive shipping costs and detention and 
demurrage fees, exporters are struggling to meet contract 
deadlines in our critical Asian markets, jeopardizing important 
trade relationships. I have been hearing from constituents of 
mine, particularly those involved in the agriculture industry, 
that this is a major issue.
    It is encouraging to hear that the Economic Research 
Service is working to improve agriculture supply chains, but it 
is important to work with other stakeholders so the information 
is shared with those who can learn from it.
    After ERS and universities complete their investigative 
work, what happens to the findings? Are recommendations 
provided to the supply chain stakeholders who can learn from 
the investigations?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. This is great. So I am going to turn to 
Administrator Stefanou to talk a little bit about their work in 
this area.
    Mr. Stefanou. Thank you, Representative, for your question. 
Trade is essential--is an essential mechanism for U.S. 
agriculture. Today, actually, we released a Chart of Note that 
shows that we had $142 billion of ag exports in 2019, which 
also generated another $160 billion in revenue to U.S.--
farmers, service industries, food processors, and others.
    The blip, the disruption in the COVID, you know, is a 
situational issue, and we are engaged with these co-op 
agreements, and we will distribute research reports broadly to 
all comers once our work is completed.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate it. And my time is pretty much 
up, but just one follow-up comment is, a lot of my farmers, as 
commodities start to come out of the--are harvested, there is 
going to be a huge impact on our farmers. Right now, our citrus 
guys are getting hammered pretty hard, and we see our grapes 
and others are pretty nervous about the future. And so as 
groups continue to work on this, any research or any 
opportunity that you can play a role in being helpful would be 
greatly appreciated.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging my extra time there, 
and I yield back the rest of my time.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to one of our very, 
very impressive new members, the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 
Underwood. You are now recognized for your questions.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
to our witnesses for joining us today.
    Farmers in my northern Illinois community are on the front 
lines of climate change, and in recent years, they faced 
unprecedented flooding and some very, very difficult planting 
seasons.
    We know that farmers are key to improving the 
sustainability and the resilience of our region, and many are 
already delivering solutions with real impact in our efforts to 
address climate change.
    Effective climate change mitigation and adaptation 
practices in agriculture are in so many ways built upon the 
scientific and technical output of USDA's research, education, 
and economics agencies.
    I am pleased to see the emphasis on climate change in your 
written testimony, and I would like to ask some questions on 
the agency's efforts in this space.
    First, I want to follow up on a question asked earlier by 
Representative Pingree regarding the recommendation from the 
USDA Inspector General that USDA establish a central mechanism 
that actively tracks USDA-funded research and scientific 
publications.
    In the agency's response to the inspector general, it 
agreed to this recommendation and provided a timeline of fiscal 
year 2024 for implementation. I would like to learn more about 
why this timeline is so drawn out.
    Dr. Jacobs-Young, can you provide an update on the agency's 
efforts to implement the inspector general's recommendation, 
including if you intend to accelerate the timeline the agency 
originally provided to the inspector general? And if not, can 
you elaborate for us why the fiscal year 2024 timeline is 
appropriate?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. So that is--yeah. So as I shared earlier, 
we are going to work very diligently to integrate the NIFA-
funded projects into the platforms that have been developed for 
open access and transparency.
    We have been very busy in the last 6, 7 years, really, 
digitizing all of our collections, collecting all of our peer-
reviewed publications, our data sets, and our new platforms 
called PubAg and Ag Data Commons. We think that is a great 
platform for NIFA work.
    While I am sitting in the seat as Acting Under Secretary, 
we are going to work very hard to get them integrated into 
those platforms. We already have a proof of concept, we have 
already been doing it very well, and we think that that is an 
opportunity.
    And so if that accelerates the timeline, I think that is 
going to be good news for all of us.
    Ms. Underwood. Fantastic. Thank you.
    So the system will become even more necessary as USDA ramps 
up its climate change research efforts. It will allow more 
coordinated research effort, and farmers, scientists, Congress, 
and other stakeholders can stay better informed of USDA-funded 
research.
    Next, I would like to learn more about USDA's plans for the 
Regional Climate Hubs. Since their founding, the Climate Hubs 
have provided an array of practical tools and information to 
farmers, despite limited funding and staff. President Biden's 
skinny budget requested $40 million for these Climate Hubs.
    Can you provide some detail on the plans to expand the 
Climate Hubs program, particularly your plans to improve 
outreach to farmers and increase their awareness of these new 
resources?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yeah. So we will get a lot more details 
from the President's detailed budget when it is released. I 
will share with you some long-term plans we have for the 
Climate Hubs, and that is to look at places where there are 
still gaps, where we might be able to establish new hubs.
    There is a need to really--the Climate Hubs have been so 
successful in training the future generation of our 
agricultural and climate scientists, and so we really want to 
expand the program of bringing in grad students and post-docs 
to be able to train them to be a part of our team going 
forward.
    And we want to expand the scope of the Climate Hubs. You 
know, one of the things we talked about--so PubAg is wonderful. 
PubAg--ARS produces alone some 4,000 or 5,000--4,000 peer-
reviewed publications and a couple of thousand in climate 
science alone.
    Producers can't go to that PubAg and know what to do, and 
so the Climate Hubs are so important, because they take all of 
that peer-reviewed publications, all of that information and 
they translate it into tools that the producers can use. And so 
bringing the producers in and the stakeholders and consumers to 
be a part of the conversation and delivering to them 
information they can use so that they can be a part of the 
solution.
    And so that is why we need all of it. We need the 
repository for the material, we need the people who can 
translate it, and then the Extension and the Climate Hub folks 
to take it out there to the people who actually need it.
    So there are a lot of efforts underway. We are so well-
positioned to help the administration in their goals for 
climate, and we are just excited to have an opportunity to do 
so.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you so much for your 
extraordinary work and your leadership. I am so pleased that 
your tenure as the Acting Under Secretary is going so well, and 
thanks for appearing before our committee today.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Underwood.
    And at this time, I would like to yield to the gentlelady 
from California, the chair of the Foreign Ops Subcommittee, Ms. 
Barbara Lee.
    Ms. Lee, you are now recognized.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our ranking 
member. And especially thank you to Dr. Jacobs-Young for your 
leadership and your testimony and for being here today. It is 
really exciting to be with you.
    A couple of questions I have. First of all, urban farming 
production methods make fresh local produce available to 
communities across the Nation, especially in minority 
communities that are often classified by USDA as food deserts. 
Vertical farming, particularly, has the potential to change how 
we get fresh food to local communities while using a fraction 
of the land and water needed to grow the same food 
traditionally.
    I am fortunate enough to see the economic benefits and 
health benefits that this type of access to fresh food provides 
right in my own district in Oakland and Berkeley, California, 
where one local vertical farm provides healthy food year round.
    So, Dr. Young, how is USDA engaging with new urban and 
innovative farming industries like vertical farming? And is the 
USDA supporting research to advance sustainable agricultural 
practices like vertical farming as land use and water use 
becomes increasingly more restrictive?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. At USDA, we have worked in 
both ARS and NIFA in the area of urban agriculture, and we are 
looking at germplasm. You know, a lot of people think you can 
just take a plant that grows outside and bring it inside and it 
is going to be the same outcome. That is not necessarily true. 
And so we are developing varieties that are productive and can 
be more successful inside a soilless or a hydroponic situation. 
We are developing new management practices. You know, we have 
to deal with pests and diseases. Even if they are grown 
indoors, they have to have pest and disease management 
strategies.
    One of the big issues around indoor growth was energy and 
heat use. And so we have developed some models to help be able 
to simulate and help growers be able to mitigate some of the 
costs, some of the needs for energy and heat. And we have 
developed new management practice, new soilless practices, new 
hydroponic practices, and so we are very much on board.
    I would like to be able to ask Dr. Castille if she wants to 
talk a little bit about what NIFA is doing with the land grant 
university system.
    Ms. Castille. Sure. Thank you so much.
    So we do have a few programs that you might be interested 
in. First is our SARE program, our Sustainable Agriculture 
Research and Education program. It is farmer lab research on 
farm, and it has been tremendously popular. We have heard a lot 
of feedback, and we have a lot of support from organizations 
like our National Sustainable Ag Coalition, and we work very, 
very closely with them.
    We also are looking at things like vertical farming through 
AFRI, our flagship program, as well as our capacity programs. 
And then we do have an urban agricultural program as well. And 
I see we have limited time, but I would be happy to provide you 
with some more information.
    I do also want to emphasize, though, through our 4-H and 
positive youth development programs, we are actually 
introducing concepts and really looking at and listening to see 
what we can do to be able to support our youth, especially in 
urban agricultural settings.
    So thank you so much.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. And let me just--I have just 
a minute left.
    Dr. Jacobs-Young, given the toll of the pandemic, which you 
have clearly laid out on families and increased levels of food 
insecurity, how is USDA increasing outreach and enrollment in 
these nutrition education programs? And what are we doing to 
empower USDA to really look at the inequities in terms of food 
insecurity and nutrition as it relates to poverty rates 
throughout the country, rural and in urban communities?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. We have some outreach efforts 
through NIFA with the Extension service. We have some efforts 
through Economic Research Service where they have actually 
taken a scientific look at the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic 
on food insecurity, on the food--how much food is being 
purchased outside of the home, inside the home.
    Carrie, could you quickly talk about the program with 
Extension?
    Ms. Castille. Sure, sure. So--and I love talking about 
Extension. So I came from Louisiana Cooperative Extension. 
EFNEP, our Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program is a 
very, very popular program. It provides resources and 
educational information to our underserved populations, for us 
to be able to help to make better choices and healthy choices 
in our diets. It is a very, very popular program, we are very 
excited about it, and I can share more information with you 
should you need.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much, both of you.
    And I have 12 seconds left, Mr. Chairman, so I will yield 
those 8 seconds back to you now. Thank you again. Good seeing 
everyone.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
    And at this time, I am delighted to yield to the chairlady 
of the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations, Ms. McCollum, 
the gentlelady from Minnesota.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you so 
much.
    I am not going to get into Mr. Pocan's offer of cheese, but 
we have a lot of great dairy products in Minnesota too, the 
home of Land O'Lakes.
    I would like to kind of switch gears a little bit and talk 
about two items. The Research, Education, and Economics mission 
is very key to what you do in USDA. It is, you know, helping 
rural communities rebuild and combatting climate change. And we 
have a lot of that work going on at the University of 
Minnesota. So I would like to take a minute to talk about the 
Forever Green Initiative.
    And what is exciting about that is it is a multisector 
partnership. It is hosted by the University of Minnesota. 
Brings together groups like Friends of the Mississippi River, 
Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 
the Intertribal Agriculture Council, and so much more. And part 
of what they are working on is the continuous living cover on 
farmland.
    And the Midwest crop production, by and large, is rural 
crops--corn and soybeans. And as people know, these are 
harvested in the fall. And what that means is that now we have 
bare soil, you know, following the year's planting, and it can 
lead to all kinds of challenges that I know the USDA is working 
on--soil health, erosion, pollution runoff.
    You know, something else that we work on a lot with Ag and 
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is wildlife 
habitat. You know, it can lead to nitrates in groundwater and a 
whole lot of things.
    So Forever Green is working on developing the perennial and 
winter-tolerant crops. And I heard you talking about hemp just 
a few minutes ago, maybe in the offseason, not only to help 
with climate change but, you know, helping our soils be more 
resilient.
    So I would like you to tell us a little more about, from 
the Research, Education, and Economics mission, what are you 
doing to support partnerships like Forever Green?
    My second issue is a followup on a great hearing that the 
chair had last week on rural development, and we were talking 
about, you know, what we need to do to keep rural America 
strong. And I would like to know a little more about, you know, 
how broadband ties into this issue in particular, and that is 
Tribal colleges and universities, and probably for HBCUs and 
other higher education learning institutions, which I have 
supported funding for in the past. But I would like to 
understand more about your research and education extensions, 
especially at Tribal colleges and universities.
    They were only given land grant status in 1984, and at that 
time--excuse me--1994--1994--and at that time, there were only 
26 of them. Now there is 35 TCUs, have been given this 
designation. The funding for these research grants has not been 
meaningly increased, and it has not been adjusted for 
inflation, and so it puts Indian Country behind some of our 
other minority serving institutions.
    So maybe kind of give me a taste for what might be in the 
budget or follow up with the committee on what you are doing on 
these two projects.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Okay, great. You know, we recently had a 
2-day Tribal consultation with--hosted by USDA, and we had a 
wonderful opportunity to hear from the Tribal community about 
the things that are important to them from a research-education 
perspective.
    We heard the need for, you know, additional support. You 
know, they asked for that. We heard the desire to grow their 
own experts. And so what has happened is that the students come 
out and they may stay--and they go out to the university 
outside of the community and they stay outside of the community 
for the most part. And what they want to do is have the 
capacity internal to the Native community, is to train and grow 
their own experts so that they have a pipeline of people that 
stay and help grow their expertise.
    In USDA, ARS, NIFA, ERS, and NASS, we heard from them a 
number of things that we can do to be better partners for the 
Native American community. Talked about germplasm--I talked 
about germplasm a little bit earlier--working with the Native 
American community to preserve germplasm that is important to 
their culture.
    You know, we are looking at the American buffalo and some 
of the other germplasm that is unique but that can also teach 
us some things about how to respond to drought, how to respond 
to floods, you know, because they have been doing it for a 
long, long time.
    And so we have a lot to learn from how they have done 
production management practices. And so we are going to be 
working with them, and we would love to follow up with you on 
what we plan, what our new plan is going to be.
    Ms. McCollum. Great.
    Mr. Chair, they can get back to me on the Forever Green. 
Thank you for the time, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the testimony.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. McCollum.
    At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from 
Texas, my good friend, Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to you and 
the ranking member and to the members of the committee.
    Thank you for being here, to the witnesses, and I would 
like to ask you some questions dealing with the border area.
    In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, we got a couple threats to 
the citrus. One is the ongoing threat of the Mexican fruit fly, 
number one. And then the other one has to do with the citrus 
greening disease that, as you know, throughout the United 
States, a $3.3 billion U.S. citrus industry, that is a threat. 
So I would like to see what you all are doing on that 
particular aspect.
    And then the other thing dealing with south Texas is the 
cattle fever ticks, which is something that the committee--and 
I think we started this in the farm bill in, I think, 2008, 
where we added money to have you all fight the fever ticks. As 
you know, that quarantined area in south Texas has been growing 
instead of shrinking, even though the chairman's help and other 
members, we have added millions of dollars to the fever tick 
situation.
    I don't think we can dip ourselves out of that problem. 
That is, you dip every cow, because you got to deal with 
wildlife in other areas. So I would like to see what you all 
are doing dealing with the cattle industry, the fever ticks, 
and, of course, the citrus interests industry with those two 
areas.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Okay, great. So I will start with the 
Mexican fruit fly. We have been working very diligently to 
bring on new experts. We have hired--we are hiring two new 
experts in one of our facilities, I think in Hawaii and another 
one there closer to Texas.
    We are improving an innovation that has been around for 
many, many years, actually developed by Dr. Ed Knipling, and it 
is called the sterile insect technique. We are using that. You 
know, we create sterile male flies that mate and then the 
population dies off. So we are improving that technology to be 
used here.
    We are also partnering with APHIS, our Animal, Plant, and 
Health Inspection Service, to develop and test traps and lures, 
and then we will be able to also improve our detection of the 
presence of the Mexican fruit fly. We can have an opportunity 
to know more about the range and scope, and we can evaluate 
biocontrol methods that we can bring in perhaps a wasp or some 
other native enemy to the Mexican fruit fly.
    So we also want to be able to help develop quarantine 
treatment so that, you know, there is not--we can mitigate the 
economic losses to producers in the presence of Mexican fruit 
flies.
    And so I know there is a lot more work underway. In the 
essence of time, I wanted to share that with you.
    And then I can talk a little bit about the citrus greening. 
As you said, you know, the citrus greening, the industry has 
lost 60 percent of acreage and about 80 percent closure of 
juice plants and packing houses. So this is a very significant 
issue.
    The disease is now widespread across commercial citrus 
orchards in Texas and is spreading among California's 
residential citrus trees. So we are not just talking about 
Florida anymore; we are talking about Texas and California 
included.
    ARS has developed 12 new root stocks and seven sweet orange 
scions. I learned a lot about the root stocks and the scions, 
and if it is tolerant to citrus greening and nobody wants to 
eat it, it doesn't matter. We have to actually also work with 
the science. So we have developed the sweet orange scions, and 
they have shown tolerance to citrus greening. And we have 
publicly released all of those to be tested.
    We are currently in a huge test in Florida, and they have 
been disseminated. We are storing the germplasm. We are backing 
up our California germplasm in Colorado, because now citrus 
greening is in California. So we are taking some proactive 
steps.
    And one of the most exciting pieces of that, and it is a 
lot of work we are doing with genome sequencing, is that we 
have trained dogs to sniff out the citrus greening. And they 
can sniff it out, and they can determine if a tree has been 
infected early. Because what we know now is that a tree is 
infected, but it doesn't show signs for some 10 to 20 years, 
and by that time, it is too late. And so if we can learn early 
if the tree is infected, we can remove it. And so that is one 
of our exciting opportunities.
    And we have a lot of work underway on cattle fever ticks. I 
know we don't have enough time, but I would love to have a 
followup with you to share all the work we have on all three of 
those areas.
    Mr. Cuellar. Right. My time is up, but follow up on that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the chairwoman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, 
Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the gentlelady from Florida.
    You are now recognized.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the opportunity to hold this hearing.
    I am proud that American public land-grant universities 
like the University of Florida--go Gators--has been leading the 
world in the arena of agricultural research and education. For 
years, UF has been an excellent partner with the National 
Institute of Food and Agriculture, or NIFA.
    Federal investment in these academic research partnerships 
is so important because every dollar invested in agricultural 
research and development returns $20 in benefits from increased 
agricultural productivity.
    I would like to hear how you think NIFA's partnerships and 
grant programs with universities like UF help further USDA 
research and goals in areas like plant and animal protection, 
climate change mitigation, water conservation, and nutrition. I 
think that is really for Dr. Jacobs-Young.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Oh, absolutely. One of the things that--
the beauty of the way Abraham Lincoln established the USDA and 
the land-grant university system around the same time, we have 
been partners for a long time, and so we are so connected. And 
so when we all do--when one of us does well, we all do well.
    And so NIFA has many, many programs across the spectrum in 
terms of plant and animal production, working with our 
intramural agency, ARS, you know, our colleagues at NASS, who 
collect all the important data around the impacts of our work.
    And so--it looks like we might have lost Dr. Castille. I 
see her name, but I think she might not be here right now, 
but--there you are. So if you want to just share a little bit 
more about what NIFA has underway in the partnerships with the 
land-grant universities.
    Ms. Castille. I am sorry. I must have hit my button.
    So, Representative, I had an opportunity to spend some time 
in your great State this weekend. My daughter is actually at 
the University of Florida. In a passthrough, I saw the ARS 
facilities and had an opportunity to talk to her a little bit.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [inaudible].
    Ms. Castille. Absolutely. And it was great to see her. But 
as I drove through the campus and really had a chance to look 
at the buildings and the research that is going on, I was proud 
to see that NIFA has a role in a lot of what is going on in 
your State, as well as the University of Florida.
    So we talked a little bit about AFRI.You have heard me 
mention that in a couple of my comments, but it is really 
poised to be able to look at plant health, animal health, 
renewable energy, sustainability, all of the different things 
that you feel, and you have mentioned earlier, is important in 
connecting with our land-grant universities.
    I do also want to emphasize our capacity program. It 
provides the opportunities to really be nimble and to be able 
to focus efforts, research, education, working through our 
cooperative extension, as well as our experiment station, to be 
able to meet the needs of the State. Gives you the ability, 
again, to be nimble, and so I think there are some 
opportunities.
    I would be happy to provide you with some more details as 
to what we are doing with the University of Florida. We have a 
tremendous amount of efforts there.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Wonderful. Thank you.
    The other question I wanted to ask really focuses on 
artificial intelligence in agriculture. Again, my alma mater, 
University of Florida, has dedicated significant amounts of its 
own resources, as well as utilized Federal resources to advance 
artificial intelligence and supercomputing research.
    For example, the University of Florida's HiPerGator and AI 
supercomputer is a State and national asset that is helping to 
develop AI abilities across disciplines. And I know that UF is 
also working on cutting-edge research to apply AI to ag 
production, which is an area where it really hasn't yet been 
significantly incorporated.
    But one of the main challenges here is a lack of data. AI 
seemingly could help farmers increase crop productivity, save 
water, and maybe even manage pests. Is there an area where REE 
agency has done any work? And does USDA see potential in 
applying AI to ag production? How far away are we from scaling 
that up?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Oh, yeah, we are already doing it. We are 
already doing it, and we routinely leverage innovative 
technologies such as AI and machine learning to advance our 
precision agricultural research and speed up precision 
agriculture technology development.
    We have formed some important public-private partnerships. 
ARS brings to the table decades of data, for watersheds, for 
crop and animal management. And when we partner that with 
companies who have expertise in GIS, for example, in software 
platforms, so bringing--leveraging the best of what each of us 
has to bring to the table, we have been able to build some very 
productive partnerships.
    And the goal of all of this is to deliver tools to the 
producers and consumers that help them make informed decisions. 
And so we would love to have an opportunity to talk to you 
about some of the centers of excellence we have stood up. And 
so I know our time is up, but we would love to come and talk to 
you. I know Dr. Liu, especially, could talk to you until the 
cows come home about artificial intelligence, and he would love 
an opportunity to sit down with you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is that a little ag joke?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. He is our AI guy.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back the balance of the time I do not have.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    At this time, I am delighted to yield to the very patient 
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Grace Meng.
    Ms. Meng, the floor is now yours. You are now recognized.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and 
to our Under Secretary Jacobs-Young, and all of you, for being 
here and for your great work.
    I also wanted to ask a bit about the NIFA program, 
specifically after the 2018 farm bill provided more support for 
urban agriculture.
    Urban agriculture in New York City, production agriculture 
is really booming. In addition to more than 600 community 
gardens, the number of commercial, the number of for-profit 
production agricultural enterprises in the city grows every 
year.
    And recognizing that urban farms face different challenges 
than traditional rural farms, as you know, the farm bill 
provided $10 million in mandatory funding for the urban ag 
program in the first year and then authorized up to $10 million 
in annual discretionary funding through 2023. Though we have 
never fully funded the program, Congress appropriated $5 
million in 2020 and $7 million in 2021 for the Urban 
Agriculture Office.
    So last year, the Farm Service Agency funded an Urban 
Agriculture and Innovative Production Program, and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service funded co-op agreements for 
compost and food waste reduction. But all NIFA did was solicit 
input from stakeholders on how the agency should develop the 
request for applications.
    How come NIFA has not funded the urban agriculture research 
and extension programs? And does NIFA have plans for this 
fiscal year to fund and further develop this program?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Dr. Castille.
    Ms. Castille. Thanks.
    And thanks, Representative, for your question. I am as 
eager as you to be able to get this program kicked off. I know 
how important it is in urban agriculture. We are awaiting the 
placement of the Federal advisory committee for urban 
agriculture, and I can commit to you we are going to be working 
very, very closely, and this is a top priority for me.
    I do want to mention a couple of other programs in this 
area around urban agriculture that I think you might be 
interested in. Our Master Gardener program is extremely 
popular. It is something that I had the opportunity to be able 
to participate in and to be able to see in Louisiana and know 
that the impact that the Master Gardener program can have in 
really, again, identifying and being able to look at what 
agriculture looks like in those specific areas. So the Master 
Gardener program.
    Let me also emphasize again the 4-H and positive youth 
development efforts, to be able to identify, again, what 
agriculture looks like. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach, 
but there is tremendous opportunities to be able to work with 
our youth and be able to, I guess, help inform and create that 
pipeline of urban agriculturalists.
    So thank you for your question. I am going to continue, if 
you don't mind, to keep you posted as to where we are with that 
program.
    Ms. Meng. Awesome. That would be great.
    And just to switch gears, I know I have a little time left. 
It is a question for Dr. Stefanou, or whoever else would like 
to answer, about child nutrition programs that the Economic 
Research Service researches and monitors, which have been life-
savers for my district, especially throughout the last year, 
here in Queens, New York, which was the first epicenter of 
COVID-19 across the country, meaning that our kids were among 
the first to scramble to fill the gaps in meals that they had 
been receiving at home when they transitioned to full remote 
learning.
    So I just wanted to know some of the challenges that the 
Department faces in transitioning from in-school meals to 
innovative programs like the extended Summer Food Service 
Program or P-EBT.
    I don't know if maybe Dr. Stefanou or----
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Dr. Stefanou.
    Mr. Stefanou. Sure. Thank you. Yes, thank you, 
Representative, for your question. Well, ERS is monitoring 
reports on the prevalence of severe food insecurity among the 
U.S. households, and we look at various--variations, I should 
say, across race and ethnic groups in geographic areas.
    We just actually put some--a Chart of Note out recently on 
food insufficiency. And actually, we are finding that it has 
gone down in the last month or so for all ethnic groups except 
for the Asian, non-Hispanic group.
    So we have been tracking this through the COVID era the 
past year using the Household Pulse Survey. And the Household 
Pulse Survey is a collaboration with the U.S. Bureau of Census 
and several other Federal agencies, where we are tracking, you 
know, real-time data here on food consumption, food purchases, 
and trying to keep track of what the progress is.
    And so we don't have programs to promote food security. We 
are tracking it for us--for the Nation. Thank you for your 
question.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I will yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng. That completes our first 
round of questions. I will now begin the second round.
    Mr. Hamer, in January, the Farm Bureau released a number of 
recommendations to strengthen NASS. Increasing transparency 
with farmers in order to increase participation in NASS surveys 
was the first recommendation. We could have the best data 
analytical tools, but their value diminishes if the survey 
responses and the data collection rates are not as robust as 
possible.
    What is the agency's plan to increase transparency, improve 
communication, and accelerate technological improvements? And 
how will you tie any changes back to the overarching goal of 
increasing survey response rates and improving data collection? 
And how can we help you in that endeavor?
    Mr. Hamer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your question. We 
appreciate that. We not only receive feedback from the American 
Farm Bureau but from other data user communities as well, and 
we always take that into consideration when we are looking at 
our programs.
    Our response rates have been fairly strong over the years, 
including during the pandemic year. Actually, a number of the 
Farm Bureau recommendations were in line with our published 
strategic plan that lays out a way that we would move the 
agency forward, adapting new technology. We have a number of 
legacy systems that we are replacing as part of that process.
    In addition to that, we have had our State directors and 
regional directors reach out to all of their--all of the local 
Farm Bureau leadership at the State level, to receive some 
additional feedback and talk to them about opportunities to 
network and work with NASS to provide additional information. 
In addition to that, we are working with their public affairs 
team to also include information about upcoming surveys that we 
have.
    So we have a very strong partnership. And again, some of 
the recommendations as far as the being more transparent, those 
recommendations we are taking very seriously and are working to 
direct them to some additional information that is part--that 
is already on our website. So I appreciate the----
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you.
    As the agriculture industry moves to a greater, greater 
consolidation, small, beginning, and disadvantaged farmers have 
a tougher and tougher time competing in the marketplace, or 
they may lack adequate broadband, or they may hold an off-farm 
job to make ends meet. Keeping up with the research can be very 
difficult for them.
    So can you discuss how, Dr. Jacobs-Young, you try to 
address the problems facing the little guys in your research 
and how you ensure that they are aware of the resources that 
will help them become more competitive, especially through the 
Extension systems; as well as, how can the USDA use the 
perspective and the Extension Center to better collaborate with 
the 1862s, the 1890s, and 1994s, so that the shared audiences 
can be better targeted and the foods can be better leveraged 
between institutions and youth capabilities of all of those 
institutions?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely, sir. Real quickly just share 
with you that we are very excited about some new efforts around 
just some rejuvenation for our Beginning Farmers and Ranchers 
Development Program. We have some new efforts in energy around 
our Farm Stress Program because, you know, our producers need 
that type of support.
    And I will just quickly turn it over to Dr. Castille to 
talk about some of the new activities around the Beginning 
Farmers and Ranchers Development Program.
    Ms. Castille. Thanks, Dr. Jacobs-Young.
    And thanks, Representative, for your question. So we do 
have the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Development Program, 
and I know there were additional resources provided to be able 
to help support our small farmers in this area.
    It is a great opportunity to be able to provide training. 
In fact, on the way over here, in the Uber, I was asked about 
how a beginning farmer can purchase land and get training. So 
it is a great segue.
    But it is an exciting program. We are working closely with 
Extension, both our 1890s institutions, our 1994s, as well as 
our 1862s. We also have our Small and Mid-Sized Farmer program.
    So I do understand and really appreciate the conversation 
around supporting our small farmers. So I am happy to provide 
some more details. I see I am running out of time, but we do 
have a lot of excitement around this program, and I am happy to 
provide you with some of the results.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. And those programs also have some 
emphasis on veterans, including veterans in the conversation. I 
think about some of the specialty crop research we have 
underway looking at those plants and animals that are 
specifically value-added for small producers. And so we have 
a--we would love to follow up with you afterwards, if you would 
like more information.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, and we will follow up on 
that.
    My time has expired, but I would like to yield to my 
ranking member, Mr. Fortenberry, for any additional questions 
that you may have, Mr. Fortenberry. You are now recognized.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yes. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. I am 
going to take a point of personal privilege for a moment and 
retell a story that Chairman Bishop has heard me say. It might 
be particularly relevant to you, Dr. Castille.
    When I was young, my father died, and my grandfather looked 
at me one day and said, Jeffrey, what do you want to do in 
life, and I said, Papa, I want to be a farmer.
    And my grandfather had served as a county agent in St. 
James Parish in Louisiana. And I don't know exactly where you 
are from, but judging by an accent, perhaps that is proximate 
to where you came from.
    But it is part of the reason, frankly, that I love the 
space that we are all in, that we have dedicated our public 
service to. This is about food, food security, helping those in 
need, and sustaining one of the most productive aspects of 
American life, and both in terms of what we produce but also 
that quality of life.
    And, Dr. Castille, you made a good comment where you 
basically outlined the guiding principles of NIFA as 
productivity, stewardship, profitability, as well as quality of 
life. And I think that somewhat answers the earlier question 
that I had posed about the key priority of research.
    I do want to turn back to the question that has come up 
over and over again in this call, because it is a bipartisan 
concern and it has been addressed, but let's make sure that I 
understand it as well as what the trajectory is.
    Regarding the repository of agricultural research, a couple 
of months ago during a hearing with the inspector general, I 
asked the question, because they discovered that there was not 
a robust central repository of all the research coordinated by 
USDA. Then I asked how long would it take to get there, and 
they said 3 years.
    Now, Dr. Jacobs-Young, you have suggested that this 
coordination is already underway through PubAg, I think it is 
called, and that this is readily available. However, there 
might be a gap or there is a gap with our land-grant 
institutions. Do I understand that correctly? That is number 
one.
    And number two is, how quickly can we close that gap? I 
will turn to number three after you answer that question 
because it is a related question.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. So, yes, PubAg is a repository for the 
work resulting from our federally funded research, peer-
reviewed publications. We have new dashboards that show 
patents, and it has been a challenge. I am new to this 
conversation at this level, being in this position since 
January.
    In ARS, we have been able to get our arms around it. I 
understand how complicated it is with [inaudible] I will share 
with you that we are working--that we are working extremely 
quickly to be able to identify opportunities to bring the 
existing data in and to talk about possible changes we can make 
to the award tracking process that might automate and help us 
be able to do this easy.
    The data is still coming in. We are still getting an 
assessment of what the situation is, and so I will be happy to 
follow up with you, but we do have PubAg and we have Ag Data 
Commons.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So I think you have heard in the 
hearing today a premium, an emphasis, a decided emphasis on the 
need to understand clearly what we are doing across multiple 
platforms at USDA in order so that we can answer these deeper 
questions about the research trajectory, being nimble, making 
sure, again from my perspective, that we are looking toward the 
farm of the future and all that that entails.
    So a quick timeline on all of this--and we discussed this 
with the Secretary as well during the hearing with him--is 
really necessary for a whole range of good public policy 
outcomes. So I think you are hearing us.
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yeah, I am. And I know you guys 
understand the complexity of once you send out a billion 
dollars a year to researchers all over the country, you know, 
we have to put some systems in place to help us to harvest that 
information. And so we are willing to do that, and we are 
working on it.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. When you go back and consolidate the 
fullness of understanding of this, give us a trajectory too of 
when this will be complete or at least substantially complete. 
That would be helpful.
    Second point--the third point. Blue ribbon panel on the 
future of higher education. I was thinking about this for a 
long time. Chairman Bishop was gracious enough to work with me. 
We got it in last year's bill. Again, Secretary Vilsack has 
readily latched on to the idea. What is the timeline for 
implementation of this?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. So definitely I will give Dr. Castille an 
opportunity to talk about where we are, to updating the 
process. Ultimately, I will be in a great position to help 
moving forward, and I know that Dr. Castille and her team are 
working hard to put the right pieces in place.
    Ms. Castille. And thanks, Representative. And I know we 
only have a few seconds left, but let me say we are making 
great progress on the blue ribbon panel. So where we are, we 
have two letters of intent from two very qualified 
organizations. That really lays out kind of the scope and 
incorporates your vision as well.
    We have worked very, very closely with you and your staff, 
and we are going to continue to work closely with them. As I 
would say in St. Martin Parish, where we are not [inaudible] 
Little bit. So we are going to continue to keep you posted on 
that, but we are making a lot of progress, Representative, a 
lot of progress.
    Mr. Fortenberry. ``Parle Francais. Tres bien.''
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    I see we have Dr. Harris who has rejoined us. So at this 
time, I will recognize Dr. Harris for a second round of 
questions.
    Dr. Harris, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Just to ask about shellfish aquaculture, obviously very 
important in the Chesapeake Bay. As we know, the oysters have 
been overfished, overharvested, really for centuries, but key 
to improvement of the bay. But we have problems with MSX and 
dermo, two oyster diseases. It is possible, I think, that with 
research we can either keep the East Coast oyster or perhaps 
even go to a, you know, to a non-native species if we can prove 
that they are safe. This has worked on the West Coast in some 
places.
    Can you just, anyone, fill me in on what the Department is 
doing in terms of oyster research and especially regarding 
aquaculture?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. Dr. Liu, I am going to turn 
it to you because I know ARS has a lot of work underway in this 
area.
    Mr. Liu. Yes. Thank you very much, Dr. Jacobs-Young. Thank 
you very much, Representative, for your questions. ARS, we do 
conduct research on the genetic improvement of East Coast 
shellfish, especially we collaborate with University of Rhode 
Island.
    As you know that oyster populations are locally adapted. As 
a result, it is really necessary to breed the population that 
are suitable for a specific environment, such as Chesapeake 
Bay. So ARS scientists, but we have collaborated very well with 
the Aquaculture Genetic and Breeding Center of Virginia 
Institute of Marine Science. Our collaboration focused more on 
the [inaudible] Through suppliers on the East Coast. So our 
primary stakeholders group, the East Coast Shellfish Grower 
Association.
    So, Representative, we are working on it, and we are 
looking forward to working with you in the future on this very, 
very important area.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very, very much. I would appreciate 
that, because rebuilding the oyster stocks is clearly very 
important to the future of the Chesapeake Bay.
    One other issue that has come up and the USDA is involved, 
I am just going to ask if any of the research services are, is 
the issue of the invasive species, the blue catfish.
    What is interesting is that the blue catfish has invaded 
the Chesapeake Bay. As you may or may not know, all seafood, 
fish processing traditionally has been done by FDA, but USDA 
has the responsibility of doing inspection of catfish 
processing. And there are politics that go on in that that I 
won't get into. I just want to get into the science, because 
the reason, ostensibly, was because of the increased risk of 
salmonella from catfish processing.
    Now that the USDA has been overseeing catfish processing 
for several years, is the USDA looking into any--researching 
whether or not this is true, whether or not we really do need 
to have a different processing regimen run by the USDA for 
catfish as opposed to any other fish?
    And one of the reasons is that because it is a more 
stringent inspection process, it makes it--it is not 
commercially viable for fishermen to actually fish this 
invasive species. So if we could prove that, in fact, it is not 
a more harmful fish, it could go back to--theoretically, go 
back to FDA inspections and make commercial fishing one of the 
ways to control this invasive species.
    Are the research services at USDA looking into that at all?
    Ms. Jacobs-Young. We are. So we have a very large catfish 
research project in Stoneville, Mississippi, where we are doing 
a lot of catfish research and we are providing a lot of 
important data to decision-makers. I think I have met a blue 
channel catfish. I think that is the one that grows to be a 
huge--I know I met one in Mississippi, because they are looking 
at the genes from that catfish that make it so resistant to so 
many things, and how we can use those genes in our catfish 
project, so with some of our domestic breeding.
    So what we can do is we can go back to our researchers 
there in Stoneville, Mississippi, and ask what research they 
have underway. And then our partners in the other agencies--
FSIS is responsible for catfish inspection--we would have to 
really go back and consult with them and come back to you with 
a comprehensive answer.
    Mr. Harris. I would appreciate that. If you could 
collaborate with FSIS and perhaps look into whether this 
salmonella contamination really is an issue or whether, as you 
observe, this is a, you know--again, there is some politics 
involved with the catfish growers in the South.
    I personally think we should exempt the invasive species in 
the Chesapeake Bay from this additional inspection protocol, 
but key to that would be to prove that it is not more dangerous 
to inspect it with the FDA versus the USDA. So I would 
appreciate that.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Harris.
    I don't think I have any more questions. I would like to 
yield to Mr. Fortenberry in case he does.
    Mr. Fortenberry. No, Mr. Chairman, I am finished with 
questions. Thank you again for holding the hearing. I thought 
it was a very thorough, good discussion.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Dr. Jacobs-Young and your colleagues, thank you for your 
testimony today. We understand how incredibly busy you are 
these days, and so we thank you for taking the time. And we 
have had a pretty, I think, robust hearing.
    I think sometimes it can be easy to forget how integral 
your work is to other agencies at the Department of Agriculture 
and how much we all benefit on a daily basis from the work that 
you all support.
    The scientific process of researching and publishing a 
whole genome sequence of an apple may be a mystery to most of 
us, but the value in having cheap, nutritious, high-quality 
apples available year round is something that every American 
can understand.
    We value the work of your agencies, and we support your 
efforts to improve agricultural practices in our Nation.
    Along with what we have discussed, we will also forward 
additional questions for the record, and we appreciate your 
diligence in getting your responses back to us in a timely 
manner.
    Mr. Fortenberry, do you have any additional closing 
remarks?
    Mr. Fortenberry. No, sir. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    And thank you for all of the members in attendance, and 
thank you to our staff who work so hard to put this hearing 
together.
    And with that, this subcommittee hearing is now adjourned.
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.

                              MEMBERS' DAY

    Mr. Bishop. This hearing of the Agriculture Subcommittee of 
the Appropriations Committee will now come to order.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted 
yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to unmute 
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute 
your microphone.
    I remind all members that the 5-minute clock still applies. 
If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next member 
until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of 
your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When 
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will follow the 
predetermined order that has been provided to your offices, 
beginning with the chair and ranking member's brief opening 
remarks. We will then begin with the first member on the 
schedule and move forward from there.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at our hearings or markups. That 
email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on 
at this time.
    Well, good morning. Today, we will hear testimony from our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle regarding the agencies 
under our subcommittee's jurisdiction. As I have often noted, 
these agencies conduct vital work that touches the lives of all 
Americans. And today's hearing represents a great opportunity 
to listen to a diverse group of members from across the 
country, share your views on a wide range of issues related to 
our bill.
    We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the 
appropriations process and learning more about the programs and 
issues that affect your districts and your constituents. Your 
input is invaluable as we draft funding legislation for the 
upcoming fiscal year for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, and the Farm Credit Administration.
    Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that we 
have several members testifying today, so we will need to 
strictly adhere to the 5-minute rule to remain on schedule. I 
want to thank every member who has taken time out of your busy 
schedules to speak with us today, and we appreciate your 
interest in the work of this subcommittee.
    Now, I would like to recognize our distinguished ranking 
member, my partner in this endeavor, Mr. Fortenberry, and I 
would like to recognize him for any opening remarks that he 
might have.
    Mr. Fortenberry, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Just a 
few brief opening remarks, if you will.
    As you noted, appropriately, Mr. Chairman, we are here 
today to listen to a bipartisan group of members from distinct 
parts of the country and a wide spectrum of constituency. I 
also, like you, Mr. Chairman, want to thank every member for 
their willingness to participate, and please know how much we 
value your input. We do look forward to hearing more about the 
programs that affect your district and the communities that you 
serve.
    Your input will be critical as Chairman Bishop and I work 
to responsibly fund the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, 
as well as the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the 
Farm Credit Administration.
    Mr. Chairman is well aware of this, but I should point out 
to everyone listening, members have submitted nearly 9,000 bill 
and report requests to the Agricultural Subcommittee. I think 
that is very valuable to learn.
    As the chairman and I regularly remind members and the 
public, this bill, through the foods that we grow and eat, the 
ecosystem of rural livability we create, and the medicines we 
develop, touches the lives of every single American and 
millions and millions of people around the globe. Significant 
member interests showcased here illustrates how important these 
programs are.
    Chairman Bishop, I so do appreciate your bipartisan 
approach to building this bill, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry.
    At this time, I am delighted to welcome Mr. Jim Hagedorn 
from Minnesota.
    Mr. Hagedorn, the floor is yours.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. JIM HAGEDORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    MINNESOTA
    Mr. Hagedorn. Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 
Fortenberry, thank you very much for the opportunity. And I 
appreciate the work that you have done and all the work that 
you are doing in partnering with committees like the one that I 
serve on, Agriculture, to make sure that we sustain farming and 
our rural way of life.
    The district that I represent is in southern Minnesota, the 
First District, 21 counties, mostly rural, goes all the way 
from Wisconsin to South Dakota and then Iowa up about 80 miles. 
I think we are top ten in the country for agricultural-
producing district and number two for hogs.
    To put that in some perspective, we have 13 total ethanol 
and biodiesel plants in the district. So very heavy on ag, and 
the work that you perform is very important to us.
    You know, we saw a lot of what happened in the last year, 
where it was very difficult for our farmers to get through the 
coronavirus from one side to the other. I think the previous 
administration and Congress together, in a bipartisan fashion, 
did a good job of helping out.
    But, you know, to illustrate how tough it was, for 
instance, with our hog farmers, when the restaurants closed and 
the demand for the finer cuts of meat went right through the 
floor, so did the price for hogs. And we have devastating 
consequences, where we had too many hogs trying to go to 
market, and they literally had to cull their herd in many 
instances. It was a tough time.
    So we want to avoid things like that, of course, moving 
into the future, and one way to do that is to try to protect 
the United States and protect our farmers from things like the 
African swine fever.
    Long before anybody had ever heard of the coronavirus and 
COVID-19, I had been talking about African swine fever and how 
we didn't want it to happen in China and Vietnam and other 
places, we didn't want that to happen in the United States.
    So I introduced legislation in the last Congress to augment 
the number of order inspectors that we would have, to make sure 
that we can try and protect the country that way, upgrade our 
beagle brigades that can literally go out and sniff out that 
pork and try to protect our farmers. And I would hope that you 
would continue to fund those operations and augment them, if 
possible. Because if we get African swine fever into the United 
States, it won't affect just our pork farmers; it will be 
everybody up and down the chain. It is going to be obviously 
the meat packers, and it is going to be the grain farmers, and 
it is going to be the truckers and the grocers and, ultimately, 
the American consumer.
    So I would appreciate your consideration for continued 
funding there and to make sure we can do all we can to protect 
our farmers from African swine fever, and other infectious 
diseases, I might add.
    Also, I would like you to pay attention a little bit to the 
infrastructure issue. And I know you know this better than I, 
but right now, ethanol is something that is a very good 
alternative. Blending it with gasoline, it helps keep the price 
down, and it helps to keep a cleaner environment. And we have 
lots of producers in our district, and they could use your 
continued support.
    One of the areas that I think that we need to invest in is 
the expansion of E15. And it is not that the gas stations and 
others don't want to provide that option to consumers, but 
sometimes it can be very, very costly to convert the pumps and 
to make the types of changes that are needed.
    So if you can look into anything you can do with the Higher 
Blends Infrastructure Incentives Program and try to keep 
funding in that area, that would be very beneficial.
    Lastly, I think the whole coronavirus situation has really 
brought to everyone's attention, once and for all, the fact 
that we have a need in the rural areas for broadband. And this, 
to me, is just a quality-of-life issue. It is a basic 
infrastructure issue. We want to make sure that all Americans 
have the same opportunity to thrive and do well.
    And so I think if we can focus more money on the rural 
connect program on ag, which seems to be going good things, 
whatever we can do and help the American people, particularly 
in rural areas, to have that opportunity and that we are all on 
the same level.
    We had kids literally in the district that would have to 
drive to McDonald's, you all have seen these stories, you have 
heard about it yourself, you have seen it in person. And we 
just can't have that in the United States anymore. So very 
happy to work with you on these and other issues.
    As a member of the Ag Committee, again, I think it is great 
that we have this partnership, and really appreciate the work 
this subcommittee have done; so many good things for farmers 
and agribusinesses and our rural citizens.
    And with that, I yield back. Thanks for your time.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Hagedorn. Your 
testimony brings up the importance of ensuring that our imports 
are protected from disease, continued investments in biofuels, 
and bridging the digital divide. We understand these 
challenges, and we look forward to working with you and your 
staff moving forward to address them. Thanks for coming today. 
And without objection, your entire written testimony will be 
included in the record.
    Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes, Representative Hagedorn, thank you so much for your 
excellent testimony. Let me just pick up on one note that the 
chairman mentioned. We have decidedly focused on the broadband 
issue. The story you told is repeated across the country.
    Modernizing and creating the metrics for understanding of 
what the outcome of this money that we are spending on this, 
because there is a lot of money there, are going to be 
essential to actually helping us take the next digital leap and 
all the opportunities that is going to afford which were 
painfully cast upon us during COVID.
    But thank you very much for highlighting it. It is a real 
opportunity that we all have.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    And at this time, I am delighted to recognize the 
gentlelady from Washington, Dr. Kim Schrier. You are now 
recognized.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. KIM SCHRIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    WASHINGTON
    Ms. Schrier. Well, thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking 
Member Fortenberry. I am here today to discuss a few issues of 
great importance to me, specifically, USDA energy programs that 
allow farmers, my constituents in rural areas, to install solar 
panels, Federal nutrition assistance, agricultural research, 
and school kitchen equipment grants. I am going to hit some 
highlights today and submit the remainder for the record.
    So first, energy programs. On a recent visit to DeGoede 
Farms in my district, I saw a solar installation that was 
funded by two USDA programs: Renewable Energy Development 
Assistance, or REDA, and Renewable Energy for America Program, 
or REAP. These two programs provide essential technical 
assistance and funding to farmers and rural businesses as we 
install renewable energy systems like solar panels.
    You know, both programs are popular in my district and in 
Washington State, but demand for these programs far outstrips 
funding.
    Pierce County Conservation District recently told me that 
over the past 3 years, they have seen dramatic increases in the 
number of rural businesses and farmers interested in 
participating in these programs, so much so that conservation 
partners in the State don't have enough resources, technically 
or fiscally, to support the demand.
    Additionally, statewide funding caps means that fewer than 
half the farmers who want to participate in this program are 
actually able to do so. Now, if the caps were increased, we 
would see a lot more farms and rural businesses installing 
solar.
    As we work with the Biden administration to tackle the 
climate crisis this Congress, we should be taking every 
possible opportunity to promote renewable energy systems. 
Increasing funding for REAP and REDA is directly in line with 
that priority, and I urge the highest possible funding levels.
    Research. The Specialty Crop Research Initiative funds 
research that supports hundreds of specialty crops in 
Washington State. Past funding for projects in Washington has 
supported efforts to combat fungicide resistance in wine 
grapes, precision irrigation for fruit growers, and pest 
prevention in onions in the past 2 years.
    I have worked very hard to make sure specialty crop 
researchers have access to the resources they need and was so 
pleased that my fix to allow waiver authority for SCRI was 
included in fiscal year 2020 and 2021 appropriations bills. But 
until a permanent fix is enacted, the fiscal year 2020 language 
in restoring the waiver authority must be included in annual 
appropriations bills. So I urge the committee to provide full 
funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative in fiscal 
year 2022.
    Agricultural research. I also want to urge the committee to 
provide necessary funding to support Federal ag research 
infrastructure. Modern ag research and education facilities 
serve as the backbone of our Nation's cutting-edge ag and food 
research enterprise.
    But according to a 2021 report by the Association of Public 
and Land-Grant Universities, 69 percent of research facilities 
at U.S. colleges are at the end of their useful life. The cost 
of upgrading deferred maintenance on these buildings is 
estimated at $11.5 billion, and that is why I support 
increasing investments in our Federal ag research 
infrastructure.
    This multiyear investment will reposition the U.S. for 
long-term success and competitiveness in the world. And 
estimates suggest that strategic Federal investment in these 
facilities at land-grant and non-land-grant universities and 
schools of agriculture would create 200,000 new jobs 
nationwide. New facilities would generate new solutions, a 
diverse group of scientists, innovators, and agricultural food 
managers, and each dollar invested returns 20 to the economy.
    Over the last three decades, Federal support for ag 
research, education, and extension has been flat, but 
investments by global competitors are increasing. So I urge you 
to join me in the effort to reposition the U.S. for success and 
competitiveness worldwide.
    Nutrition. I also want to take a minute to address the 
importance of Federal nutrition programs. The number of 
children not getting enough to eat is now 10 times higher than 
it was before the pandemic. And as a pediatrician, I cannot 
overstate the importance of ensuring that our children not only 
have access to food, clearly first priority, but also 
nutrition. And so pleased that Pandemic EBT will be extended. 
So I ask the committee to provide funding to ensure kids have 
access to WIC, SNAP, TEFAP, and Pandemic EBT.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dr. Schrier. This is the second year 
in a row that your testimony has touched on such a wide variety 
of topics, so I appreciate your dedication and your passion for 
the programs in our bill. From supporting our rural communities 
and ag research facilities to ensuring our domestic nutrition 
programs are fully funded, I couldn't agree with you more in 
terms of your priorities, and we look forward to working with 
you to address these very serious issues. Thank you for 
appearing today. And without objection, your entire written 
testimony will be included in the record.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to recognize the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon.
    Mr. Fallon, you are now recognized.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. PAT FALLON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
    Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, and members of 
the subcommittee, appreciate the opportunity to testify to 
discuss our pressing needs for our farmers, ranchers, and rural 
Americans.
    The Fourth Congressional District is overwhelmingly rural, 
and I ask the committee to consider the following: the Circuit 
Rider Technical Assistance Program. As we all know, access to 
clean and safe water is a necessity. However, providing clean 
and safe water requires individuals who are able to train 
others in how to correctly assess clean--and access clean and 
safe water.
    Texas-04 is home to 92 member water utilities which 
directly serves over 370,000 constituents in our district. That 
is approximately half the district. Circuit Riders provide 
hands-on training to nonprofit water supply corporations, water 
districts, and small cities on all aspects of clean water 
issues. They also assist utilities with evaluating alternate 
technical solutions and recommend operational improvements.
    I am requesting the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Agriculture provide funding increase for the USDA's Circuit 
Rider Program at 3 percent more than the $20,157,000 
appropriated in fiscal year 2021.
    Providing this funding will maintain the 132 full-time 
Circuit Rider employees and will cover increased travel 
benefits and, of course, inflationary costs.
    And rural broadband couldn't be more important for rural 
America. The COVID-19 pandemic brought heightened awareness to 
our need and dependence upon the internet. With schools and 
businesses closed, Americans became more dependent on the 
internet to educate our children, for virtual medical office 
visits, and to carry out banking activities, just to name a 
few.
    We quickly realized that large swaths of America, and 
indeed in Texas-04 as well, lacked access to the internet. Many 
communities continue to lack internet service and meeting the 
FCC's minimum speed standards for broadband, 25 megabits per 
second for downloads and 3 megabits per second for uploads.
    In Texas-04, which includes Hunt, Camp, Fannin, Delta, and 
Rains counties, that has been a really big issue. It is 
estimated that 22 percent of Americans' rural areas lack access 
to these fixed speeds compared to only 1.5 percent of Americans 
in urban areas.
    I am requesting, respectfully, that the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Agriculture provide robust funding for the 
USDA's ReConnect Program, building off the $635 million 
appropriated in fiscal year 2021.
    Additionally, I am requesting, respectfully, $350 million 
for the Rural Broadband Loan and Grant Program authorized by 
the Ag Improvement Act of 2018, the 2018 farm bill. Investing 
in these programs will provide a direction that will expand 
eligibility to areas that still lack basic broadband service 
while providing meaningful down payment in our rural 
communities and their economies at a time when it is most 
needed.
    In America, it is about fairness, and our rural folks 
really need to--in the 21st century economy, they can't really 
compete or grow without rural broadband access.
    Additionally, I respectfully request the committee include 
language urging rural utility services to expand reconnect 
eligibility to provide funding to areas without access to 
internet speeds that meet or exceed the 25/3 standard 
consistent with the 2018 farm bill.
    These programs must promote broad participation in 
technical neutrality and transparency, et cetera.
    I also would like to talk to you very quickly about the 
``Grassroots'' Source Water Protection Program. The ability to 
protect our groundwater and surface water from pollution is 
extremely important in providing America with clean and safe 
water.
    There are 243 ground and surface water systems in the Texas 
Fourth District. Without source water protection specialists, 
we are not able to protect these ground and surface waters 
adequately. Investing in source water protection allows us to 
be proactive in prevention by reducing point and nonpoint 
source pollutants before they pollute our water.
    These efforts are not only important in protecting the 
integrity of our water, but also extremely beneficial to our 
economy. The USDA, they estimate that soil erosion costs 
between $2 billion and $8 billion a year, and the EPA estimates 
that the public water system spent an additional $200 million 
per year just to remove excess pollutants.
    Therefore, I am requesting the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Ag provide funding for the Farm Services Agency's Source 
Water Protection Program at the same levels appropriated in 
fiscal year 2021. Ensuring this funding and this program allows 
us to prevent source water pollution.
    And then lastly, Rural Utilities Service's electric loans. 
Our country can't operate without electricity, as we know. 
Consumers-owned, not-for-profit electric cooperatives generate 
less than 5 percent of our Nation's electrical power but 
maintain 42 percent of the Nation's electric distribution lines 
and cover 56 percent of the overall mass.
    These electric cooperatives use Rural Utilities Services to 
finance their operations, to provide services to 42 million 
folks. The electric loans have a stellar repayment record, and 
the loans made in fiscal year 2019 netted $219 million to the 
U.S. Treasury.
    I am requesting that the subcommittee fund the RUS program 
at the levels appropriated in 2021.
    Mr. Chairman and committee, thank you so much for your time 
and consideration in these requests.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Only, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, 
Representative Fallon, for your thoughtful comments.
    Let me pick up on two things. Look, clean and safe drinking 
water, as well as wastewater treatment, are critical parts of 
rural development. If someone turns the faucet on and it is 
running brown or causes a health problem, this is essential to 
community well-being.
    So thank you so much for highlighting the importance of 
these particular programs and how essential they are to our 
rural communities. I appreciate it.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Fallon. And without objection, your entire 
written testimony will be included in the record. The 
subcommittee couldn't agree more about the topics that you 
discussed, so we look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to represent--to 
recognize, rather, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar.
    You are now recognized, Ms. Escobar, for 5 minutes.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. VERONICA ESCOBAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TEXAS
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Chairman Bishop and Ranking 
Member Fortenberry, for this chance to discuss priorities I 
have before the Agriculture Subcommittee.
    This year's Community Project Funding process was such a 
wonderful opportunity to engage with El Pasoans, people who are 
on the ground and know the needs of our region best. I am so 
proud to have submitted one of these projects to your 
subcommittee for consideration.
    As you are all aware, the pandemic has shown us just how 
important broadband access is, especially for remote learning. 
However, there are communities across the country that simply 
lack the resources and funding needed to expand their broadband 
capabilities. The pandemic exacerbated the digital divide. It 
has harmed our students, especially the most vulnerable and 
marginalized communities, and now we must do what we can to 
ensure that these very communities have the broadband access 
they need to prosper for the duration of the pandemic, as well 
as after it is long over.
    That is why I have submitted the Cotton Valley Connect 
project for consideration under the ReConnect Grant account. 
This project would assist the students and families of the 
Fabens and Tornillo Independent School Districts by providing 
them with public broadband access via a wireless mesh service.
    These two school districts serve some of the most 
economically disadvantaged communities and census tracts in El 
Paso County and in Texas, and expanding broadband access in 
these areas would positively impact the lives of over 3,000 
students.
    Giving these students the ability to access learning 
resources from their own homes will have several practical 
effects, like allowing them to conduct research for homework or 
prepare for a class presentation. There will also be a broader 
effect of developing these students so they can graduate high 
school and contribute to the economic success of our region.
    While the location of this project is just outside my 
district, these students and their families are linked to the 
Paso del Norte region, and providing them with the means to 
thrive will ultimately help all of El Paso County.
    Finally, I would like to emphasize with this subcommittee, 
as I have with other Appropriations subcommittees that I have 
testified in front of, that it is essential that you include 
mechanisms within your bill to guarantee that Federal funding 
will make it to its designated recipient. This is especially 
important for items like Community Project Funds, which are 
designated for local governments and other entities.
    As you may know, for months, my governor, Texas Governor 
Greg Abbott, held critical COVID-relief funds hostage. This 
means entities like schools were unable to properly spend 
relief funds on COVID safety measures or were unable to 
reimburse themselves. While Governor Abbott recently released 
some of these funds, he is also holding up Federal funds to 
help local governments with migrants arriving at our Nation's 
front door. I urge the subcommittee to take this into 
consideration while you are drafting your final bill.
    Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify before you 
today, and I look forward to collaborating with the 
subcommittee as you continue to draft the final appropriations 
bill.
    I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Escobar. I understand 
all too well the challenges that communities without adequate 
broadband face, and our staff is diligently working to vet all 
of the requests. And it is our hope to fund as many Community 
Project Funding requests as we can possibly do it.
    Mr. Fortenberry, any comments?
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yes, just briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you.
    Representative Escobar, thank you for your comments. We 
appreciate your insights. And as you have probably listened to 
the hearing, you have noted most other Members have also 
highlighted the broadband issue.
    We have got a huge opportunity to embrace this digital leap 
and to make sure that the funds available are pointed and meet 
their intended recipients' goals. And this is what I call an 
ecosystem of livability. It is just not about wires laid. It is 
about the meaning of the broadband and the digital leap so that 
we have the opportunities for telework and distance learning 
and telehealth, as well as precision agriculture and small 
business e-commerce all readily available to rural communities.
    I know you are recognizing that as well as many other 
Members. So thank you very much for your comments.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you both.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Escobar, for coming. And without 
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in 
the record.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentleman 
from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew.
    Mr. Van Drew, you are now recognized.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. JEFFERSON VAN DREW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    NEW JERSEY
    Mr. Van Drew. Hello, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 
Fortenberry. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify 
before the Appropriations Agricultural Subcommittee today. I am 
here to request $3.75 million in the Community Project Funding 
towards Salem County Courthouse located in Salem City, New 
Jersey.
    This project is eligible and deserving of Community Project 
Funding through the USDA Community Facilities account. It has 
received a letter of eligibility from the New Jersey USDA 
Office of Rural Development and Community Facilities, as well 
as letters of support from many local officials. Further, the 
guidance issued by this subcommittee explicitly references 
courthouse as an eligible category.
    Salem County is the seat--and the county seat of Salem 
City, in which the county courthouse is located, is a low-
income, low-population, rural, and majority minority community. 
The county has found itself in an increasingly difficult 
financial situation over the past decade. Between 2010 and 
2015, Salem County lost $530 million in rateables, which is a 
lot of money in south Jersey. In 2016, it lost another $126 
million in rateables.
    Salem County and Salem City have suffered population loss, 
divestment, and natural disasters that have significantly 
impacted the community's finances. As the county commissioner 
director states in his letter, Salem City is our poorest city 
in New Jersey's poorest county.
    The current courthouse infrastructure is insufficient to 
meet the demands that have expanded threefold over recent 
decades. The planned improvements expand their facility by 
nearly 100,000 square feet, and address issues including 
failure to comply with handicapped accessibility, lack of 
ballistic glass in windows, lack of sufficient camera coverage 
on the premises, lack of duress alarms, lack of proper 
screening areas, lack of secure and separate parking areas for 
our judges.
    The current state of the courthouse presents a public 
safety issue for the entire community. The State of New Jersey 
has mandated that Salem County is required to modernize the 
courthouse and is responsible for the capital costs incurred in 
constructing, expanding, and renovating the courthouse 
facilities.
    Salem County not only supports the Community Project 
Funding submission, the community needs to survive this 
obligation being forced upon the county.
    The Salem County Courthouse project which is, in sum, will 
amount to an obligation of $38 million, is yet another 
liability against the county's finances.
    The county has already obligated $30 million through debt 
financing, which is a tremendous burden for an underprivileged 
county such as this. The money will serve as a match against 
the requested Community Project Funding relief.
    It is crucial that the committee provide the requested 
Community Facility Funding for this project so the most 
disadvantaged county in New Jersey receives a lifeline that it 
so desperately needs.
    This project is eligible and deserving of Community Project 
Funding of the requested $3.75 million. The USDA Community 
Facilities program exists to support projects exactly like this 
one. South Jersey needs this. South Jersey needs it very much, 
and Salem County needs this and needs it very much. And Salem 
City needs this funding which will keep our communities safer 
and the scales of justice moving as they were intended to, with 
safety.
    I urge you to include this funding in this year's 
appropriation. And just remind you to please remember what the 
commissioner director said: Salem City is the poorest city in 
New Jersey's poorest county.
    Thank you for your time, Ranking Member Fortenberry and 
Chairman Bishop. And I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Drew. Courthouses 
are an important symbol for the communities that they serve, 
and I look forward to working with you. Our staff is diligently 
working to vet all of the requests, and it is our hope to fund 
as many Community Project Funding requests as we possibly can.
    Mr. Fortenberry, any comments from you?
    Mr. Fortenberry. Only to thank you, Mr. Van Drew. The 
Community Facilities Program is very important.
    Mr. Chairman, if you could indulge me for just a moment, 
maybe I could give Mr. Van Drew just 15 more seconds to 
describe the circumstances in which the county courthouse 
exists; in other words, the environment there that creates the 
larger justification for the request.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    First of all, this is an area in total, in general, as I 
had mentioned, is quite poor, the surrounding area. It is an 
area where there has been certainly significant increases in 
some areas in crime.
    The courthouse itself--I mean, imagine in today's time 
lacking handicapped accessibility. Imagine not having ballistic 
glass in the windows, not having the proper amount of camera 
coverage, the lack of duress alarms, the lack of proper 
screening areas, the lack of even a secure area, you know, is 
unbelievable.
    And more than anything else, remember that there only used 
to be one judge there. Now there are three judges. So we have 
insufficient circumstances, insufficient surroundings, and even 
more stress on the area. I think we really owe to--as I am 
going to repeat for hopefully the last time, but, you know, the 
poorest county has the poorest town in the State of New Jersey, 
and that is saying something. They really truly need--if we are 
going to base this on need, certainly it is a worthy project.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Great. Thank you, Representative Van Drew.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Drew. Without 
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in 
the record.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady 
from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Lee, you are now recognized.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TEXAS
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, for 
allowing me to be here this morning. And, Mr. Fortenberry, 
thank you so very much for your leadership.
    I am going to quickly go through some of the important 
elements of your Appropriations Committee, which is very 
important because it reinforces the breadbasket status of 
America.
    And as evidenced during the pandemic, I can assure you that 
in my district, besides, in the early days, a test to determine 
whether you were COVID-19 positive, I can assure you that it 
was the food, the food distribution, over and over and over 
again, in food deserts, in nonfood deserts, where people were 
both demanding and desperate for food.
    So I understand that my entire statement will be made part 
of the record, so I will keep my remarks succinct by just 
calling out the names of the programs that I support. My 
statement will be in the record.
    SNAP program helping 47 million Americans. I support 
funding at the highest level for Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program. During Hurricane Harvey, we were able to 
get the Supplemental Nutrition Program under the disaster 
extension and--when it was cut off, and it was represented by 
local officials that people didn't need it. And over, I think, 
a 1- or 2-day period, when we got the extension, we served 
32,000 people.
    People need food, and they need it particularly when we are 
in the midst of a disaster.
    I support full funding for Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program, which is the WIC Program, which offers both nutrition 
education, referral services. I support $330 million for the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program. I support the $65 million 
for the USDA Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children.
    I support the $39 million for grants under section 105 of 
the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids. I think it is clear that many 
children only get good healthy food at school. This will help 
schools reduce hunger among low-income students and boost 
education health outcomes.
    I have schools in my district that the only food that these 
children receive is what they receive at school, which is why 
the pandemic was so devastating and why the summer school 
program is so desperately needed.
    I support $22 million for the Senior Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program. We are establishing farmers markets 
throughout my district.
    I support $240 million for Commodities Supplemental Food 
Program. I support $100 million for the TEFAP storage and 
distribution, which will help food banks and emergency feeding 
agencies.
    Our food bank is one the largest in the Nation, the Houston 
Food Bank, and it has served millions of people. It provides 
the anchor for food throughout the State of Texas.
    I support $38 million for the Pollinator Focuses Research. 
The significant decline in pollinated populations, most notably 
that of commercial honey bees, is a national concern. 
Pollinators are vital to our Nation's economy and ecosystem, 
contributing nearly $15 billion to the economy.
    I support $62 million for the Evans-Allen program; support 
$30 million for the Healthy Food Financing; and in protection, 
I support $6.5 million for the National Veterinary Medical 
Services.
    Everybody might have seen India the tiger. Well, we know 
there is more work to be done. She is now safe. I support 
robust funding for horse protection. $30 million for the Animal 
Welfare Act.
    And I am very, very strong, as I conclude, on rural 
development. My district is sort of a rural-urban, urban-rural. 
And we have been able to help some small cities in my community 
actually get an ambulance--get commodity--get cameras for their 
police officers. So it is very important.
    I support $335 million for Commodity Futures Trading, $55 
million for Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges. I support 
$17.9 million for the USDA Circuit Rider.
    And if I might, I probably, as I see the time, just 
quickly, it is in my statement, but I would like to have report 
language, because the committee is cognizant of the 
vulnerabilities in safety and security of persons, property, 
and interests working and located in the U.S. Capitol and its 
environment.
    And so I would like to ensure that there is report language 
regarding the Secretary should take--including undertaking 
immediate review of a clearance--security clearance holders 
reported to have engaged in violent acts against individuals, 
property, or public spaces based on the security clearance 
holder's association, or sympathy with persons or organizations 
that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence or any other 
illegal or unconstitutional means in an effort to prevent 
others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or 
laws of the United States or any State based on the factors, 
including, at a minimum, race, religion, national origin, or 
disability.
    Thank you so very much for allowing me to be here. And the 
conclusion or the totality of my statement will be included in 
the record. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your 
indulgence, your patience. Thank you so very much.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. We appreciate your 
strong interest and support for a wide variety of programs 
under our committee's jurisdiction, from nutrition programs to 
animal protection and welfare, to expanding our rural 
development. We look forward to working with you to continue 
the conversation and to ensure that these programs have the 
resources that they need to succeed.
    Mr. Fortenberry, any questions or comments from you?
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yes. Only to thank our colleague, Ms. 
Jackson Lee, for her ongoing passion around, to use your words, 
good, healthy food. I really appreciate that.
    I also want to highlight one thing that you mentioned, and 
it surprised me a little bit, pollinator research. My wife has 
kept bees, and we all know that this hidden benefit of this 
small insect is invaluable to our Nation's environmental well-
being, as well as crop production. So thank you very much for 
highlighting that.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, again, Ms. Lee, for coming. And 
without objection, your entire written testimony will be 
included in the record.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, if I might, as I close, we 
would love the Agriculture Committee to give us instructions on 
how to deal with this 17-year invasion that is coming that most 
of us don't understand. I am sure you are aware of this beetle 
bug that is coming, I understand, out soon. So we hope we get 
some relief from that.
    Mr. Bishop. We look forward to discussing that with you, 
and we certainly will be on top of it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Take care.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady 
from New York, Ms. Tenney.
    Ms. Tenney, you are now recognized.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. CLAUDIA TENNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 
    YORK
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
    I want to thank the chairman and Ranking Member Fortenberry 
and the distinguished members of the subcommittee for giving 
Members the opportunity to share their priorities with you 
today. This is a really important issue that I am going to 
bring up.
    I am also honored to represent New York's 22nd 
Congressional District, which is largely rural, stretching from 
Lake Ontario in the north, all the way to the Pennsylvania 
border in the south.
    Over the past decade, as our economy has rapidly gone 
digital, communities like mine have been left behind. One of 
the largest issues my constituents face is the lack of 
reliable, affordable access to the internet.
    In today's world, your internet connection can determine 
your destiny. It shapes your access to education, healthcare, 
employment, and employment opportunities. The COVID-19 pandemic 
has only driven this point home. Education, work, and 
healthcare is all online. Those who lack the bandwidth lack the 
access.
    To make matters even worse, upstate New York is subject to 
a broadband monopoly. Sadly, New York State political officials 
agreed to a cable consolidation plan under an agreement with 
Spectrum Communications, which they claimed would expand and 
improve service. However, the State and the New York Public 
Service Commission have absolutely failed to enforce this 
agreement to expand into rural communities like mine. This has 
left too many rural customers in my district with nonexistent 
broadband service or service that is far too expensive or far 
too weak to have effective communication.
    This is the reason I support a community funded project 
that was presented to me by the Village of Sherburne in New 
York. This project would greatly expand high-quality internet 
to residents, providing larger bandwidths to a local school and 
a healthcare facility in the district, as well as allowing 
businesses and residents to access significantly faster 
service. This is going to open my community to greater 
opportunity.
    In addition, the new network will allow customers to access 
multiple internet service providers, giving them greater 
options at lower costs, and our seniors are very excited about 
this.
    As you move forward with the USDA's ReConnect Program, it 
is essential that we continue our support for these types of 
projects while also making reforms to ensure the program is 
meeting with the changing needs of communities.
    To this extent, I encourage this subcommittee to review the 
definition of minimum internet service and determine if the 
definition still meets current needs. In the last decade, 
technology has transformed and current scheduled increase of 
the minimum download speed to 25 megabits per second simply is 
not high enough to meet the demands of many communities. In 
fact, most of my community is at less than 10 megabits per 
second.
    Higher standards for schools, healthcare facilities, and 
libraries are also essential. Imagine your child not being able 
to stream an educational video, or your doctor not having 
enough internet service or accessibility to adequately research 
a condition or to provide telehealth services to so many of our 
seniors.
    It is also important that new expansions are able to host 
multiple internet service providers so rural customers are 
given real choice to participate in a robust market and not 
locked into an expensive monopoly, like many of the residents 
in my district.
    Transparency and accountability were two critical factors 
that drove my support of this project. I am committed to 
ensuring my Federal funding brought back to our region is spent 
transparently and responsibly. As with any Federal program, 
Community Project Funds must adhere to the highest standards, 
and I will hold my community beneficiaries accountable.
    This project I am supporting today was rigorously reviewed, 
included extensive consultations with a variety of 
stakeholders. It has strong buy-in from my community, as well 
as clearly demonstrated benefit to my district.
    As many of you likely know, New York State taxpayers pay 
more to the Federal Treasury than the State receives in return. 
I will always advocate on behalf of my community and fight to 
return tax dollars to New York.
    Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee ranker, 
for giving us this opportunity to present our requests. Thank 
you, and I will take any questions if any. I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Tenney. Thank you for 
your testimony. We understand the challenges that communities 
without adequate broadband face. Our staff is diligently 
working to vet all of the requests, and it is our hope to be 
able to fund as many Community Project Funding requests as we 
possibly can.
    Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Tenney, I want to pick up on what you said about, I 
think the town is called Sherburne, New York. Working with 
Chairman Bishop, we created a new program over the last 2 years 
called the Rural Placemaking Innovation Challenge. And I would 
like to point you and that community in that direction.
    I commend you for bringing up this idea of what we call 
placemaking or this ecosystem of livability, ensuring that 
broadband is actually--and broadband expansion is actually 
meeting its intended purpose of expanding, again, access to 
telehealth, livability, e-commerce, small business, as well as 
distance learning and the opportunity to engage in telework, 
including a variety of other factors that make a place, again, 
a great place to live and work and raise a family.
    So, again, it is called the Rural Placemaking Innovation 
Challenge. I appreciate your comments. And this might be 
another place in which you want to investigate to see if it 
fits your community, and we would be happy to work with you on 
that if you would like.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. We have 
many communities who need this, and so we appreciate it.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Tenney. And without objection, 
your entire written testimony will be included in the record.
    At this time, I am happy to recognize the gentleman from 
Tennessee, Mr. Rose.
    Mr. Rose, you are now recognized.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. JOHN W. ROSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TENNESSEE
    Mr. Rose. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
speak on matters of great importance to the agricultural 
community. It is an honor to be with you and be here this 
morning.
    I come before you today to request level funding for the 
Non-Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture Program through the 
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, or NIFA, so that 
our non-land-grant institutions of higher learning may continue 
to educate and train future leaders of the agricultural 
industry.
    Since the 2008 farm bill authorized its creation, NIFA has 
collaborated with leading scientists, policymakers, experts, 
and educators in organizations throughout the world to find 
innovative solutions to the most pressing local and global 
problems. I can think of no better way that NIFA accomplishes 
this mission than through their support of their capacity-
building grants for non-land-grant colleges of agriculture.
    These grants focus on improving research, outreach, and 
post-secondary level educational activities related to food, 
agriculture, natural and renewable resources, human sciences, 
and other similar disciplines.
    The NLGCA program has been a critical asset to preparing 
32,000 graduates annually for a successful career in the 
agricultural industry. This program offers a hands-on approach 
to learning for undergraduate research, balanced by a 
curriculum focused on business principles, critical thinking, 
problem-solving, decisionmaking, creativity, communication, and 
teamwork.
    By graduation, students are well prepared to return to 
their family's farm, begin a career in public service, pursue 
further learning, or find other ways to contribute to our 
Nation's agricultural community.
    Of the 58 NLGCAs across the United States, awarding 25 
percent of all baccalaureate degrees in agriculture, food, and 
natural resources-related majors, the need is stronger than 
ever to support this vital learning program.
    Additionally, I urge the committee to support my Community 
Funding request for $5 million to be directed to Tennessee 
Technological University for the development of a 10-acre 
greenhouse complex to enhance the availability of hands-on 
educational opportunities for students at the TTU School of 
Agriculture.
    Part of what makes STEM education so unique is the 
necessity for students to not only have access to outstanding 
teachers, textbooks, and classrooms, but equally as important 
are the opportunities for experiential learning. For students 
in STEM majors, it is critical that, as part of their 
education, they have the chance to experiment with the lessons, 
methods, and theories they learned in their lectures. This 
greenhouse complex would make that possible.
    If built, this greenhouse will provide TTU students and 
farmers from across the Upper Cumberland Region the opportunity 
to grow produce using state-of-the-art technology that is 
affordable on a small scale and is also scaleable to larger 
operations. The complex would also provide employment 
opportunities for students to assist with educational expenses, 
while providing local food banks with fresh produce in the 
area.
    Finally, it is worth noting that the students who would 
make the greatest use of these facilities are predominantly 
women. Therefore, this project would bolster diversity in the 
agricultural industry and provide greater opportunities for 
young women who choose to pursue careers in agriculture.
    The benefits of this request would be felt throughout the 
community, both for students and farmers alike.
    Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, thank you 
again for allowing me to appear before this subcommittee today, 
and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the 
subcommittee as we pursue ways to better American agriculture. 
Thank you. I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Rose. We must continue 
to invest in the education and training for the future leaders 
of agriculture, and we will continue to do this through NIFA. 
Your commitment to education and training is also reflected in 
your Community Project Funding request, and our staff is 
diligently working to vet all of the requests, and it is our 
hope to fund as many of these projects as possible.
    Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Representative Rose, for your thoughtful 
comments, the importance of agricultural education across a 
variety of institutions. Dr. Castille, who runs NIFA, was 
before our committee last week. If I can make a personal 
recommendation, I think some dialogue directly with her might 
be of benefit to you.
    Part of the guiding principles that she pointed out are 
stewardship and profitability as they inform the intentionality 
of their organization. And I thought that was very thoughtful 
and insightful because, again, this idea of sustainability is 
stewardship of the resources that we have and making sure that 
it provides revenue back to the farmers.
    So just, again, a personal note, maybe a recommendation, 
you might want to take up to have direct dialogue with her, but 
I really appreciate your thoughtful comments.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    And, Mr. Rose, the subcommittee appreciates your testimony 
very much. And without objection, your entire written testimony 
will be included in the record.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to recognize the 
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird, you are now recognized.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. JAMES R. BAIRD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    INDIANA
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 
Fortenberry, for this opportunity to join you today and share 
initiatives I feel are priorities for the agricultural 
industry.
    For those of you who don't know me well, I represent 
Indiana's Fourth Congressional District, the largest ag 
district in an already ag-heavy State. I am a Ph.D. Animal 
scientist and a farmer myself. So needless to say, I have a 
great passion for serving our Nation's farmers and ranchers and 
providing the tools needed to keep America's food system 
healthy, affordable, and stable.
    The first item I would like to call your attention to is 
increased funding and direction for FDA's Center for Veterinary 
Medicine, for evaluation and approval of animal food 
ingredients. Animal food manufacturers are researching and 
bringing to market innovative feed ingredients that can improve 
animal nutrition, animal health, production, make the food 
safer, and reduce the industry's environmental footprint. They 
are able to do this because regulatory schemes elsewhere in the 
world have kept pace with the evolving science of animal 
nutrition.
    Unfortunately, our farmers and ranchers in the United 
States are missing out on these opportunities, some of these 
ingredients, due to the Food and Drug Administration's outdated 
way of regulating these products, and reductions and 
restrictions on how they are marketed.
    I ask this committee to urge the FDA to modernize its 
policies to allow feed ingredients with production animal well-
being, food safety, and the environmental claims to be 
regulated as foods rather than drugs. To address this much 
needed modernization, I ask the committee to provide an 
increase of $5 million to improve animal food ingredient 
reviews to enable innovation to continue in this industry.
    Another important area for scientific innovation is our 
understanding of genetics through the National Institute of 
Food and Agriculture's Genome to Phenome Initiative. This 
initiative is an important program for providing plant 
researchers with the tools to measure and to analyze plant 
characteristics to grow better crops, regardless of the 
environment, advancing the efficiency and sustainability for 
producers. And to expand access to these tools and continue 
this important research, I ask the committee to increase the 
funding to the program to $10 million for fiscal year 2022.
    As American science and agriculture continue to develop and 
implement innovative new technologies, it is critical that 
legislators not add additional burdens to the process of 
bringing these technologies to market and bringing it into 
production. In no case is this truer than that of the 
bioengineered salmon. AquaBounty, an aquaculture company in my 
State, has developed a product that has repeatedly been proven 
safe and can sustainably increase domestic production of high-
quality protein. Unfortunately, past Senate appropriations 
language has stymied the commercialization of this innovative 
technology by placing additional requirements on the product.
    I ask that this year's House appropriations package include 
language to allow the sale of this product labeled as 
bioengineered, in line with the disclosure standard. I have 
provided suggested bill language for the record as well as 
through the appropriations request portal.
    Another area, oat production and oat consumption in the 
U.S. has increased over the year. Oat production has steadily 
decreased resulting in U.S. mills importing over 90 percent of 
their oats from Canada. In order to bring oat production back 
to the U.S., I ask the committee to continue to support ARS' 
genetic oat research program by providing an increase of $2.25 
million so that our Nation can become self-sufficient.
    In addition to the previously described programs, whose 
funding I feel is critical and of critical importance to the 
success of modern agricultural industry, moving forward, I 
would like to express the importance of and my broad support 
for, as already been mentioned, the Rural Development 
Cooperative Grant Program, full funding for critically 
important National Animal Health Laboratory Network, full 
funding for the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development 
Authority, broad support for funding the increase to the 
adoption and consumer access to biofuels like ethanol, and 
broad support for USDA programs that help provide access to 
broadband connectivity for those in rural America who currently 
lack that access.
    I feel strongly that the programs I have highlighted for 
you this morning are critical to the continued success of 
agriculture and the agricultural industry and will play a 
critical role in providing a healthier, more affordable, and 
more sustainable food system, situated to help solve some of 
the Nation's most pressing issues.
    I hope that you will share my passion for this effort and 
support these requests. I look forward to working with you on 
these and other issues moving forward. And thank you for your 
time today.
    With that, Mr. Chair, unless you have any questions, I 
yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dr. Baird. You have mentioned a 
couple of topics that we had not yet heard today, and I thank 
you for bringing those issues to our attention. And as a member 
of the Agriculture Committee, you know how vital agriculture 
research is to our country, and I will continue to ensure that 
research initiatives are sufficiently funded across the board.
    Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Dr. Baird. I should mention this, you noted that 
you are a farmer, and clearly with your Ph.D. Work, you have a 
substantive background in nutrition and outcomes for our food 
processing system. Something that many Members I don't think 
are aware of is that you are a Vietnam veteran as well. I just 
wanted to highlight that, Dr. Baird. And, again, thank you for 
your service. And thank you for your testimony today.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Bishop. We appreciate your testimony. And without 
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in 
the record.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize Mr. Raja 
Krishnamoorthi of Illinois.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi, you are now recognized.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 
    OF ILLINOIS
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you so much, Chairman Bishop, 
Ranking Member Fortenberry, and members of the subcommittee. 
And I have to compliment you, everything is running on time, so 
congratulations.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify here this morning. 
I am coming to you not only as a fellow Member of Congress, but 
as a father of three. I wanted to sound the alarm on something 
that we only learned about recently through an investigation on 
the House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer 
Policy, which is that a lot of our baby food contains dangerous 
neurotoxins. This recent investigation revealed that, 
unfortunately, there are high levels of lead, arsenic, cadmium, 
and mercury contained in very popular baby food brands, 
including Gerber, Happy Baby, Hain, and Beech-Nut.
    Now, as a father of three, my wife and I have been a profit 
center for baby foods in the past. We have purchased a lot of 
baby food. And unfortunately, this was a shocking discovery 
that we came across.
    Just to give you an example, the FDA will not allow more 
than 10 parts per billion of lead in an adult quantity of 
bottled water. But what we found is that baby foods routinely 
have 641 parts per billion of lead, 345 parts per billion of 
cadmium, and 180 parts per billion of arsenic. And as us know, 
all of those are dangerous for human life.
    The consequences of consuming these toxic heavy metals in 
infancy and early childhood are significant and lifelong. They 
cause deficits in IQ, they cause behavioral problems such as 
attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and they cause 
central nervous damage as well. And so this is deeply, deeply 
troubling and disturbing.
    The public reacted to our investigation with outrage and 
confusion. They said, how could these brands, some of them 
generations-old American icons, allow their foods to harm 
babies? As a parent myself, I can assure you there is nothing 
more gut-wrenching than the knowledge that you may have caused 
your children harm, even unwittingly. Therefore, parents 
demanded action.
    The FDA responded to our investigation by launching the 
Closer to Zero program, which is aimed at reducing the content 
of lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in baby food over the 
coming years. This long overdue step is welcome, but it 
currently lacks the urgency needed to meet the needs of 
protecting babies' brains.
    While the FDA promised Closer to Zero would lead to a draft 
lead standard within 1 year and a draft arsenic standard within 
3 years, its timeline for creating draft cadmium and mercury 
standards is delayed until, quote/unquote, 2024 to beyond. 
Furthermore, the FDA has not yet demonstrated a commitment to 
reducing toxic heavy metals to truly protect a child's 
neurodevelopment.
    It is for this reason that I respectfully, yet urgently, 
ask you to include report language in the fiscal year 2022 
appropriations bill providing $10 million for the FDA's Closer 
to Zero program. It is imperative, gentlemen and gentleladies, 
it is imperative that the FDA prioritize this particular 
program and work as expeditiously as possible to remove toxic 
heavy metals from baby food.
    Ten thousand American babies start on solid foods every 
day, 10,000. Therefore, there is absolutely no time to waste. 
We must ensure baby foods are truly safe to feed our kids, not 
just for the sake of our own children and grandchildren, but 
for the health of each future generation of Americans.
    Thank you for hearing my testimony this morning. I 
encourage you to please reach out to me or my staff if you need 
any additional information on this topic, which we will gladly 
provide. I greatly look forward to passing an annual 
appropriations bill under your leadership that will further 
ensure the health and well-being of our children. Nothing could 
be more important.
    Thank you so much. And I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6857A.185
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Krishnamoorthi. We 
absolutely must do all that we can to protect our babies and 
young children from exposure to toxic heavy metals. We will 
work very closely with FDA to ensure the Closer to Zero plan is 
effectively implemented.
    Mr. Fortenberry, you are recognized.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you as 
well, Representative Krishnamoorthi, for the insightful 
testimony.
    Let me ask you one question, in what oversight hearing was 
this a focus? I know it was last year, but where did this 
occur?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. This was in the Oversight Subcommittee 
on Economic and Consumer Policy.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, this is very, very helpful 
information. So thankful for your passion around this, as well 
as your thoughtful diligence in following through to hopefully 
what will be some successful end in solving this problem. Thank 
you very much.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Bishop. Again, thank you, Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The 
subcommittee very much appreciates your testimony. And without 
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in 
the record.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to recognize the 
gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case, you are now recognized.
                              ----------                              

                                             Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. ED CASE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
    Mr. Case. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the 
subcommittee, mahalo for the opportunity to testify before you 
today on critical needs for Hawaii agriculture.
    My Hawaii has been blessed with some of the most productive 
and diverse agriculture in the world throughout our history. 
From ancient taro, through a century and a half of sugar and 
pineapple, and into today's high value macadamia nut, coffee, 
and tropical fruit and flower crops, as well as ranching, 
Hawaii agriculture has remained vibrant, a primary economic 
driver, and the foundation of our rural communities.
    Yet Hawaii agriculture has its own challenges which require 
Federal attention. For starters, invasive species, a major 
issue throughout our country, are especially acute in Hawaii 
where, because of our isolation and unique ecosystems, they 
have especially devastating effects requiring extraordinary 
prevention and mitigation actions, and the pace of new 
introductions and damage is accelerating. It is estimated that 
in just the past 15 years, 195 new invasive species have been 
introduced to Hawaii.
    This subcommittee and Congress have supported a range of 
Federal invasive species programs that have materially helped 
address invasives in Hawaii, like fruit flies, coffee berry 
borer, macadamia felted coccid, avocado lace bug, little red 
fire ant, and two-lined spittlebug.
    Furthermore, increased funding for the Agricultural 
Quarantine Program has provided a critical first line of 
defense that prevents these additional invasives from reaching 
the Continental United States. I ask the subcommittee to 
continue to enhance these programs.
    However, there is a vital need for new funding for a new 
particularly threatening invasive, coffee leaf rust. In October 
of 2020, coffee leaf rust was just discovered on coffee plants 
on Maui Island, and has since spread to most of the Hawaiian 
islands. Farms can experience yield loss as greater than 70 
percent and lead to tree mortality throughout. This has the 
potential to wipe out the Hawaii coffee industry, which is one 
of our State's most significant agricultural exports, valued at 
more than $148 million when converted to roasted products.
    While USDA's efforts to control the spread of coffee leaf 
rust in Hawaii have been a necessary Band-Aid, longer term 
Agricultural Research Service funding for research into 
resistant varieties and management tools is critical for the 
viability of this iconic Hawaii industry.
    In addition, I ask for the subcommittee's continued support 
of Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian serving institutions, 
whose funding has generally remained stagnant. In addition, the 
4-H and Future Farmers of America grant programs for Alaska 
Native and Native Hawaiian serving institutions help schools, 
like the University of Hawaii, train the next generation of 
agricultural leaders from our indigenous communities. This is 
desperately needed in Hawaii where the average age of a farmer 
is 60 years old.
    I lastly want to urge the subcommittee's continued support 
for specialty crops, especially tropical and subtropical crops. 
The tropical regions of the world are estimated to contain half 
of the species on Earth and have numerous opportunities for 
expansion. The tropical crops that we all love, like cacao, 
guava, mango, and taro, are being produced domestically in 
greater quantities but can't receive research funding like 
other crops. They are hampered by limited local resources and 
limited access to national resources and by a continued bias in 
our national policy and support towards the larger traditional 
crops.
    Tropical and subtropical research have been listed as a 
high priority research and extension area, but it appears that 
the National Institute of Food and Agriculture has lacked 
targeted funding to implement a tropical and subtropical 
research program as it has for other high-priority areas. Given 
more exacerbated threats from climate change and increased 
risks from invasive species in these climates, tropical and 
subtropical research is more needed than ever. Targeted 
research funding in this space would help the small and 
minority farmers that drive this industry.
    The COVID-19 pandemic, and especially its effect on the 
tourism and hospitality industry, have affected most industries 
in Hawaii, including our farmers, who market extensively to 
both residents and visitors. While COVID-19 assistance from the 
USDA and SBA has been a vital lifeline for our farmers, we must 
continue to invest in domestic agriculture to help our 
agricultural producers bounce back and thrive.
    Thank you so much again for the opportunity to testify 
before you today and for your careful consideration of the 
needs of Hawaii agriculture. Mahalo.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Case. Your highlight of the 
unique challenges that are facing the agriculture industry in 
Hawaii is an important example of how many producers around the 
country depend on strong USDA programs. We look forward to 
continuing to work with you to make sure that USDA has the 
resources that it needs in order to succeed.
    Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Case. I was very engaged by your testimony. 
I come from a big agricultural country where we have 
traditional crop production and livestock production, but we 
always consider agriculture to be a big family. And I think 
your particular emphasis on specialty crop production, as well 
as tropical and subtropical crop production, is very insightful 
and a wanted opportunity to augment what we are doing in order 
to enhance opportunities, not only where you live, but for the 
well-being of the entire Nation.
    Unfortunately, I have never been able to see the problems 
that you noted up close. Perhaps Chairman Bishop has visited 
your district, but I have never been able to. That would be a 
wonderful opportunity, should that ever arise as well.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Case. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member. 
And, Ranking Member, we certainly invite you to come and take a 
look at a different side of the United States' agriculture 
industry and community. We all need the support all of 
agriculture throughout our country. My part just happens to be 
a little bit different than what people are used to, but it 
nonetheless needs a lot of attention.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Case. We certainly would like to 
have the subcommittee come out and look firsthand at the 
wonderful things that you guys are doing out in Hawaii in 
agriculture.
    We appreciate your testimony very much. And without 
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in 
the record.
    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Let me take this opportunity to thank all of 
the Members again for testifying before our subcommittee today. 
We appreciate your coming out and taking the time to talk to us 
about projects and programs that are important to your 
constituents. Your input will be vital as we move forward with 
the 2022 appropriations process.
    At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and my 
partner, Mr. Fortenberry, for any comments that he would like 
to make before we close.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Only briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so 
much for your leadership. I thought this was a great and 
insightful discussion today across the broad range of 
agricultural considerations and rural development 
considerations that are affecting America. I really appreciate 
your willingness to hold this.
    Again, agriculture in so many ways can transcend so many of 
the divides across the Nation, and I think we heard that today. 
We are all singularly focused on a safe and healthy and vibrant 
food system as well as vibrant world communities.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
    And thank you again to all of the Members in attendance. 
And a special thanks to our staff, who so efficiently put this 
hearing together and kept us on time.
    For Members who were not able to attend the hearing to 
testify in person, if you wish to submit written testimony, 
please do so by the end of the day. Your entire testimony will 
be included in the record.
    With that, this subcommittee is now adjourned.
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                       W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Baird, Hon. James R..............................................   476

Case, Hon. Ed....................................................   484

Dean, Stacy......................................................   294

Denigan-Macauley, Mary...........................................   103

Escobar, Hon. Veronica...........................................   447

Fallon, Hon. Pat.................................................   440

Fong, Phyllis....................................................     4

Hagedorn, Hon. Jim...............................................   430

Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila.........................................   456

Krishnamoorthi, Hon. Raja........................................   481

Maxson, Justin...................................................   336

Rose, Hon. John W................................................   471

Schrier, Hon. Kim................................................   435

Smith, Glen R....................................................   170

Tenney, Hon. Claudia.............................................   465

Thompson, Hon. Glenn.............................................   494

Van Drew, Hon. Jefferson.........................................   452

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J...........................................   213

                               [all]